• 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.

Two quick articles on human evolution:

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
No, there are countless Christians that do not believe that part of the Bible. That is only a minority of Christians today. One cannot both claim that and claim that Christianity is the number one religion in the world.
This is a thread that discusses Creationism verses Evolutionism, and would invite responses that you can report.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Probably over a billion Christians do not take the Adam and Eve story literally. It is a hard statistic to check.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
This is a thread that discusses Creationism verses Evolutionism, and would invite responses that you can report.
Do you mean support? That can be roughly supported. It is hard to put a hard number on it. Creationism is mostly an American problem, though there are some believers all around the world.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Probably over a billion Christians do not take the Adam and Eve story literally. It is a hard statistic to check.
And there are many who do take it literally but do not insist that such a belief is necessary for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
It does relate to the evolution=atheism issue, which s frequently discussed in this forum.
I don't have to discuss Christianity at all. All I have to do is repeat my request for proof that the evolutionary process is scientific according to the scientific method.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I don't have to discuss Christianity at all. All I have to do is repeat my request for proof that the evolutionary process is scientific according to the scientific method.
But you don't even understand the scientific method and refuse to discuss the concept. How would you recognize such "proof" when it was given to you?
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
But I have never made a statement like that in any of my posts in this thread. All I have done is to ask questions to provide proof by the scientific method that the evolutionary process is actually scientific. I have not said that evolution is not true. You have just assumed that from my questions.
 
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
All I have done is to ask questions to provide proof by the scientific method that the evolutionary process is actually scientific.

If you understood the scientific method, you'd know that it doesn't provide "proof".
 
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
Worded better than when I pointed out that error. I hope it makes an impression.

Probably not. I find that creationists always double down on their misconceptions about science.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
You said,
A Christian believes that there was a real Adam and Eve.
You are defining Christianity is such a way as to exclude millions of devout Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
But you don't even understand the scientific method and refuse to discuss the concept. How would you recognize such "proof" when it was given to you?

Here is the scientific method:
The scientific method
At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
  1. Make an observation. Where are the actual observations of the evolutionary process?
  2. Ask a question. How can the question be asked if there is no observation of the process?
  3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. The evolutionary process cannot be tested so a hypothesis cannot be form.
  4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. A prediction cannot be based on the above, so it can be only based on a guess about the probability that it might have happened that way.
  5. Test the prediction. The prediction cannot be tested because there is nothing to test it on but a guess.
  6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. The results then is that the evolutionary process cannot be proved by the scientific method.
The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.

So, what other method can be used to prove that evolution is a science?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No, that is not the scientific method. 6 is a lie. You got that from a bogus source. You cannot go to a source that lies and expect to be taken seriously. You probably did a copy and paste from AiG. If you understood the scientific method you would know that they were lying when they got to 3 and again at 6.

Would you like to discuss the scientific method. Here is a better version:


Steps of the Scientific Method

If you understood this you would see that the theory of evolution is covered by it.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Also flaming and insulting members in the way you people have done to me on this thread is also forbidden by the forum rules. Also, by insulting and flaming me for being a Christian is flaming Christian faith, and this is also forbidden according to the forum rules. It is only by the grace exercised by Christian believers that you people have not been repeatedly reported and warned for flaming Christians and ridiculing their faith.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I am sure that that false version of the scientific method comes from AiG. Ken Ham is infamous for his dishonest version of observation. We can observe evolution in countless ways. That Ken Ham does not like those methods does not mean that they are invalid.

How many peer reviewed articles in actual well respected professional peer reviewed journals are there out there? Almost none. There may be one or two, but the concept of creationism is so wrong that they often have to try to hide their tie in to creationism because that makes their errors to obvious.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,629
12,069
✟230,471.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I think that you have been corrected. I don't think that they has been any flaming aimed at you. In fact everyone has assumed that you are able to learn.

It would be flaming if we said that you were not bright enough to learn. That does not seem to be the case, and yet you are appear to be afraid to learn.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
If you understood the scientific method, you'd know that it doesn't provide "proof".
You will see by my other post on the thread that I analysed the evolutionary process in terms of the scientific method and came to the most logical conclusion about it.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,968
10,837
77
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟867,272.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
You said,
You are defining Christianity is such a way as to exclude millions of devout Christians.
I'll answer that on the other forum thread.
 
Upvote 0