- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,032
- 52,626
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?
You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.
You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.
Try reading a biology book first, and then come back to this discussion when you know something.It's entirely wrong? Really?
I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?
Try reading a biology book first, and then come back to this discussion when you know something.
By the way, feed this into your lie detector and let me know the result:
From AI Overview:
If individuals perceive a strong conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs, especially regarding aspects like common ancestry or human evolution, it can contribute to doubt and potentially lead to deconversion.
No, that's just a red herring. Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism and everybody knows it. The real fear is that It may lead to something even more dangerous to biblical creationists, to something they despise even more than they despise atheism: Traditional Nicene Christianity.You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.
Here's a novel idea. Perhaps the bigger contribution to believers becoming atheist is...what for it...fundamentalism.
Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism ...
Paul says otherwise.
No, that's just a red herring. Embracing evolution doesn't lead to atheism and everybody knows it. The real fear is that It may lead to something even more dangerous to biblical creationists, to something they despise even more than they despise atheism: Traditional Nicene Christianity.
Let's test that. Name me one change in the long journeyHumans descended from bacteria via a natural process?
There are no records of such observations. Prehistoric, you know. However, we do have plenty of examples of species evolving from other species when we started looking. It seems rather foolish to argue that biology worked differently before we started paying attention.No one has ever observed any prehistoric life-form evolving via mutation and natural selection.
However, we do have plenty of examples of species evolving from other species when we started looking.
Which Genus?
I thought you always claimed that genera were equivalent to biblical "kinds" and cannot change.Yes ... and I've addressed this before.
The genus name is arbitrary and subject to change.
From AI Overview:
Genus names can change. They change for a variety of reasons, most commonly due to new research, updated classifications, or the discovery of earlier published names. Sometimes, species are reclassified into different genera based on new evidence, and sometimes genera themselves are split or merged.
I thought you always claimed that genera were equivalent to biblical "kinds" and cannot change.
Way back to the beginning, hmm. Interesting. Always a faction at war with Western knowledge and learning. Same as it ever was.I've probably shared this Augustine quote from The Literal Meaning of Genesis too many times on these boards, but maybe not. Early interpreters, including Augustine, often gave multiple interpretations of Genesis. As Origen pointed out, a literal interpretation was the least desired or helpful.
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although 'they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.'"
Alas, reckless and incompetent expounders abound to our dismay. There's a lot about Augustine with which I heartily disagree, but he was prescient on this point.
I don't know. It sounds kind of fun. At least the origin of the word correctly identifies those of us "without faith". It might make it easier for all of those "what do you worship?" kinds to understand.I'm also glad we got away from calling those without faith "infidels."
They are genetically more different than humans and chimpanzees. You sure you want "the chimpanzee and the human are still... apes?"Ya ... the Asian elephant and the African elephant are still ... elephants.
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?