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.
Then why do a majority of theists (including a majority of Christians) accept the theory of evolution?Atheists need a belief system, which effectively serves as a replacement for religion. Their belief system is the theory of evolution.
How would they be mutually exclusive? I mean, evolutionary theory is well established; whereas, abiogenesis is not, but that does not entail that one somehow excludes the other, right? Do you mean something other than mutually exclusive?Abiogenesis and evolution are mutually exclusive.
Science can't so much as prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, which means, viz-a-viz that history, the theory of evolution and evidence for it amount to nothing more than a bedtime story.
The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.That's weird since the vast majority of people who accept the reality of evolution are theists.
All scientific theories are based on natural processes. In fact all of science is based on natural processes. Given that, why focus on evolutionary theory instead of the atomic theory of matter for example?The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.
Chemistry says molecules are the result of natural processes. Do you oppose chemistry too?Atheists worship ToE for that very reason - it says life on earth is the result of a natural (Godless) process.
A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?Then why do a majority of theists (including a majority of Christians) accept the theory of evolution?
How did you prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process of speciation?By the same mechanisms that drive speciation events we see today.
That is your proof?Why would the past be any different?
Does a geologist prove that the U-valley they're studying was formed by the natural process of glacial erosion?How did you prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process of speciation?
That is your proof?
Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.Sure we can, in the same way a geologist can come across a certain type of formation and know what mechanisms produced it.
I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.If you're going to argue that everything was different in the past then you're going to have to provide some evidence for that.
No we don't. We manage without religion easily. It's like not having a cricket team one supports. One manages fine without it. There is no cricket shaped hole that needs to be filled another sport.Atheists need a belief system, which effectively serves as a replacement for religion.
You're most definitely arguing that species were produced differently in the past than they are today. Can you give any reason why scientists should consider your argument?Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.
I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.
I was born in 1973. Not a big mystery about that past event.Nonsense. You can't to prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process anymore than I can prove that a supernatural process was responsible.
I'm not arguing that "everything was different in the past". We don't even know what happened in the past; it's a mystery.
Sorry, I'm not that gullible. No scientist can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, so no scientist can prove that that process can be described by the theory of evolution.But scientists across the world, from all sorts of backgrounds, completely disagree and have disagreed for well over 100 years.
So why should anyone go with your unsupported claim instead of the conclusions of the world's scientists?
In a way that is a false dichotomy. You are assuming that explaining a process in terms of natural causes rules out divine Providence.The reality of evolution and the theory of evolution are two different things. A theist can accept the reality of evolution without accepting the theory of evolution, which says the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process.
There you go again: "natural" is not the same thing as "Godless."Atheists worship ToE for that very reason - it says life on earth is the result of a natural (Godless) process.
You can't give a reason why anyone should go with your unsupported claims instead of the work of actual scientists. Okay.Sorry, I'm not that gullible. No scientist can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process, so no scientist can prove that that process can be described by the theory of evolution.
I agree that ToE is the best scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth, but that doesn't mean it's the truth.
My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".your unsupported claim
You ask a question that you know is nonsense and when someone notes that the question is nonsense, that's your support for your claim?My claim isn't "unsupported" - ask any scientist if he can prove that the theory of evolution describes the process responsible for producing the history of life on earth, and he will say "No".
He will also tell you that science doesn't prove things - it offers theories, not proofs.
Abiogensis relates to the origin of life whereas evolution relates to what happened after abiogenesis. They're separate fields of study, so in that sense they're mutually exclusive.How would they be mutually exclusive?
Okay, I see what you mean. Yes, they are separate fields of study.Abiogensis relates to the origin of life whereas evolution relates to what happened after abiogenesis. They're separate fields of study, so in that sense they're mutually exclusive.
Yes, really. Traditional Christians generally have no problem with it, as they have the theological basis to understand how that works--which was one of the babies thrown out with the bath water of the Reformation. Some of the Fathers wrote on the subject and Aquinas set it out definitelvely. See, we are all aware that striving to defend God's authorship of our being from "atheists" is a red herring. What you are really doing is promoting a literal and inerrant reading of Genesis. The truth is that nothing that science has discovered or in principle could discover in future can disprove the existence of a creator God.A "majority of theists (including a majority of Christians)" accept that the history of life on earth is the result of a purely natural process described by the theory of evolution?
Really?
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?