Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
Actually, it is relevant to this topic, given that you are now seemingly pretending not to know that there are Christians who have no difficulty accepting evolution.
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.
Actually, it is relevant to this topic, given that you are now seemingly pretending not to know that there are Christians who have no difficulty accepting evolution.Ha ha....I provided a list in response to an entirely different topic. There you go attempting to derail threads again.
Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.
Micro-evolution does not involve new genetic information, for macro-evolution to be possible, new genetic information must be somehow added.
As I said, no Christian denies that God created man and everything on this earth. So, no, I would not even believe a person who said such things was a Christian.
In what way were they "doing science" if they were producing forgeries in an attempt to fool the scientific community?
As I've told you before, I've worked on the same grant for a few years now. Despite the excellent reviews we've received, we haven't succeeded in obtaining funding for this particular project. Many good projects likewise fail to attract the funding they need to get off the ground. It isn't simply a matter of asking nicely and getting all the money you want. Your impression is nothing like the actual state of affairs, in which applying for funding is a huge ordeal.
But they do change! Textbooks are updated. The latest textbooks will include the most recent (and most precise) estimate of the universe's age (13.82 billion years) based on the most recent data available. If we discover the ninth planet that certain models hint at, the textbooks will again be updated to reflect this finding. Juno's discoveries at Jupiter will again lead us to update.
When was Genesis last updated?
They don't get funding for the same reason astrologers don't get funding.
How are you going with my challenge, by the way? Have you found a single reputable scientific journal or organisation that has a "statement of faith" similar to that found on AiG's website?
Actually, it is relevant to this topic, given that you are now seemingly pretending not to know that there are Christians who have no difficulty accepting evolution.
Read back through the thread. You made the claim that microevolution is entirely different than macroevolution. Your claim, your burden of proof.
Those are claims. Where is the evidence?
How do you determine when a change in gene sequence produces new genetic information?
How did you determine that the observed and known mechanisms of mutagenesis can not make those changes?
For example, here is a short homologous section of the human and chimp genome:
View attachment 177867
Which of those genetic differences are you saying microevolution could not produce?
You can't be a Christian and reject the word of God in favour of science.
Then you need to read this essay written by a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf
His name is Dr. Francis Collins, and he is saying that humans evolved.
I don't doubt that there have been lies told in this regard either. When people are motivated by money and power, they are quite likely to lie.
Not the same thing. They don't want to look at evidence for creation, which is actually visible, ghosts are not.
Why shouldn't they be able to get grants from the same institutions as other scientists?
They make all kinds of things go away all the time. We don't know the half of it.
If they say God did not create us or this world or anything in it, they are NOT Christians.
It was a response to your claims. You provide the proof.
If he denies God's word, he is not a Christian.
And they were exposed by other scientists, as I said.Some of them at least were quite respected before they did so. Who knows how many others are out there?
Because the system is based on merit: you have to show that your proposed research is theoretically and methodologically sound and that your team is capable of competently executing it. What does a creationist research program even look like?My point remains, a creationist or anyone desiring to do research that might question Darwinian evolution in any way would not even get to where you are. They would be rejected and dismissed automatically.
The "agenda" is called education.Who updates them? Who spends the money? And with what agenda?
How convenient.The word of God is absolute truth, it is not the fallible product of man.
Rightly so. Now if they would just stop whinging for a moment and invest more of their efforts into scientific activities as opposed to political activism...Exactly, they are considered "fringe" scientists.
How convenient.Off topic.
Just to be clear, do you reject every single scientific theory that is currently being researched and supported by grants for simply being funded by money?
You don't think your position is at all biased?
What evidence are they not looking at?
Because they aren't doing science. Science grants should fund science, not preaching and denial of scientific evidence.
What research do they need funding for? What experiments can they do? What is their research proposal? When have creationists ever submitted a single research grant based on creationism? WHEN??? If you want to claim they are being discriminated against, then show us the grants they have submitted, why they had merit, and why they should have been funded. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.
Like what?
But creationism falls under pseudoscience, not science. And what exactly should they be funding anyway? What does a creationist research program look like? What do they need the money for?They should fund ALL science, but they won't. They will only fund research into Darwinian evolution and related studies.
And they were exposed by other scientists, as I said.
Because the system is based on merit: you have to show that your proposed research is theoretically and methodologically sound and that your team is capable of competently executing it. What does a creationist research program even look like?
The "agenda" is called education.
How convenient.So Genesis doesn't need to be updated to reflect everything that we've learned since it was written?
Rightly so. Now if they would just stop whinging for a moment and invest more of their efforts into scientific activities as opposed to political activism...
How convenient.
But creationism falls under pseudoscience, not science. And what exactly should they be funding anyway? What does a creationist research program look like? What do they need the money for?
That science has mechanisms for dealing with such issues.So, scientists uncovered fraud and lies perpetrated by OTHER scientists. What's your point?
Creationists especially.Well, clearly not every scientist is deserving of such funding. They haven't all demonstrated "merit."
You're shifting the burden of proof.The Bible is not a science textbook. What exactly do you think needs updating? That God created the earth? Science has NEVER demonstrated that He didn't.
Not going to answer? I thought as much.You prove my point. Thank you.
Now I will move on. Everything said here only confirms my initial statement in this thread.
Have a lovely day.
I'm a Christian, I accept Evolution.Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.
I'm a Christian, I accept Evolution.
Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.
I'm a Christian, and I accept macroevolution, including a healthy dose of Darwinian evolution. You previously said, "No Christian agrees that we are the result of continual evolution from single celled organism to man, and that everything else on this earth likewise came from a single cell." That statement is completely incorrect.I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.
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?