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 dont think so, as you can check in my signature link.
My only goal is for evolutionists to admit it is called the Theory of Evolution because it is still that a theory. It is far from proven and a lot of the so called evidence is making something scientists see fit what the scientists want it to fit.
If you watch any debates on evolution and creationism 99% of the time you will see the creationist wanting to debate the subject and look at the fact and the evolutionist wanting to shout at and be abusive to the creationist without discussing the facts.
Right, you guys know better than Jesus, is that it?
Why is it a problem? Isn't that was real science should be about? It shouldn't be a monopoly on what it thinks is the truth. If there are different views out there, they should be represented and revealed.
I don't see creationism as anti-science. Believe it or not (which you obviously don't), there are plenty of PhD scientists, in biological studies and the like, who are creationists. Many work at the creation museum. There are different organizations all around the world with REAL scientists working with them.
They also start out with a hypothesis or an idea they believe is true and do the experiments to conclude whether they were right or not.
There are a lot of options and theories that exist. We COULD'VE very well have been created by a God. We could've been seeded by aliens. Maybe we did evolve from single celled organisms. If you ask me, they are all just as far-fetched as the next one, but it's a matter of faith. You put your faith into science and scientists, which is your right.
I can point out to you a Kent Hovind group on Facebook where 97% of the Creationist content is insults, demeaning straw men and insipid, mocking memes.
Galatians 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.Kent Hovind still has followers? Yikes.
Kent Hovind still has followers? Yikes.
Which needs to be translated asDon't bother us.
That is it.
It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community. It's not less scientific because it involves the belief of a God. Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.
The difference is, it's "real" science if it fits your bias, but pseudo-science if it doesn't. And please don't try to convince me that there's no bias within scientific circles. They also start out with a hypothesis or an idea they believe is true and do the experiments to conclude whether they were right or not.
There are a lot of options and theories that exist. We COULD'VE very well have been created by a God. We could've been seeded by aliens. Maybe we did evolve from single celled organisms. If you ask me, they are all just as far-fetched as the next one, but it's a matter of faith. You put your faith into science and scientists, which is your right.
Sure. But when that happens the scientific community will look for differences between competing theories and try to sort them about. When Einstein came with the Theory of Relativity, challenging Newton, the physicists started to look for differences between these two theories (the bending of star light near the sun, time dilatation etc). Until only one theory remained in agreement with the empirical data.It's possible to use scientific methods to reach a different conclusion. That should be accepted in the scientific community.
And much of the science has been done with a geocentric world in mind. This means nothing.Most of the science done in world history has been done with a Creator God in mind.
Wrong. the difference between science and pseudoscience is that the scientific community accepts the outcome of empirical data. When the data contradicts a theory the theory is either adapted or discarded. Pseudo scientists like creationists will ignore or deny data that doesn't fit their preconceived idea.The difference is, it's "real" science if it fits your bias, but pseudo-science if it doesn't. And please don't try to convince me that there's no bias within scientific circles.
Exactly. And again this differentiates scientists from creationists, or other pseudo scientists. The fact of testing hypotheses and the acceptance of what empirical data tells.They also start out with a hypothesis or an idea they believe is true and do the experiments to conclude whether they were right or not.
There are a lot of options and theories that exist. We COULD'VE very well have been created by a God. We could've been seeded by aliens. Maybe we did evolve from single celled organisms. If you ask me, they are all just as far-fetched as the next one, but it's a matter of faith. You put your faith into science and scientists, which is your right.
Now if the arrangement could be mutual, I think we all would agree to it.
Which needs to be translated as
"We want the freedom to preach, but deny you the freedom of speech".
Generally the backlash comes as a result of creationists trying to influence the education system.
If it wasn't for the fight over education, I don't think nearly as many people would care what creationists do.
Since Darwin, only about 10% of the world population are atheists. Even after TOE is forced down our children's throats in schools and practically all universities have turned away from their origins as Christian based, ya'll still have your measly 10% of ungodly people. Faith in God is strong and you are the minority.When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.
None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.
All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.
Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?
What is the end goal for creationists these days?
Yes, creationists want to impose creationism (and the associated fundamentalist Protestant prayer and Bible study) on all public school children, regardless of their faith. Who is bothering who?Creationists want to do something. Non-creatonists want to stop it.
Who is bothering who?
That's because the theory of evolution makes no statement about the existence of God, one way or the other. It is not necessary to be an atheist to accept evolution as a reasonable scientific theory.Since Darwin, only about 10% of the world population are atheists. Even after TOE is forced down our children's throats in schools and practically all universities have turned away from their origins as Christian based, ya'll still have your measly 10% of ungodly people. Faith in God is strong and you are the minority.
I may be, but death isn't. That fact that you can be callous about God and death and laugh about it is a sign of someone who maybe God has let go to his own demise. Mocking creationism is mocking God or His existence and that is a dangerous position to take.You're adorable.
Let students learn both. Stop interfering. I say mine, you say yours.
That fact that you can be callous about God and death and laugh about it is a sign of someone who maybe God has let go to his own demise.
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?