At which point they can go on to have lucrative careers at places like the Discovery Institute, who will pay them money to do very little.
It's not as if people like Behe and Dembski are living in the poor house.
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.
At which point they can go on to have lucrative careers at places like the Discovery Institute, who will pay them money to do very little.I doubt if it would even get that far. They would not even be given the time or the venue to back their claim. They wouldn't even have to be in support of creation. Just stating that they believe evolution is not true would have them done in.
So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?
There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.
I don't believe you can show evidence that skeletons of giants have ever been dug up in North and South America.So, if the Bible speaks of giants and then people start digging up skeletons of giants all over north and south America, where are the skeletons now?
I don't believe you can show evidence of any giant's skull, anywhere outside of the Bible.There are numerous giant skulls around that did not get destroyed or hidden.
I would say that our environment is changing at such a quick rate that evolution is having a tough time keeping up. The most deleterious mutations are still being eliminated, but alleles that would have been detrimental in the past are no longer as detrimental due to modern medicine.
They weren't around? How do you figure?
What part of our environment is changing at this quick rate?
My father is 87 years old and has one sharp mind. In his years he has saw some changes in society, politics and health.
In his day nobody had peanut allergies, shell fish allergies, etc. Some may be allergic to hay but it was just a minor thing when in a barn full of dust. Not the allergies we see every spring and fall here with antihistamines on every other tv ad. Chrones disease, celiac, irritable bowel.... the human body is not getting better.
Why shouldn't a theory that biologists use be taught in biology class?I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either.
Nice story bro. I hear it all the time here in this forum... funny thing is, in all my years in academia, I have never seen it.. not even once.I doubt if it would even get that far. They would not even be given the time or the venue to back their claim. They wouldn't even have to be in support of creation. Just stating that they believe evolution is not true would have them done in.
Funny how "God works in mysterious ways," yet you guys seem to know how he created life. Maybe he decided it would be better to make a universe that would unfold the way he wanted without him having to tinker with it along the way.It is logical that if you cannot show where life originated from you have a problem.
It is logical that if a grand designer created life, they would create it's final form. What artist starts with a blank canvas or lump of clay and then leaves it to time to create the work of art?
A bucket is what creationists use to collect the evidence they like, and ignore the evidence they don't like. The scripture you refer to was written by fallible men, translated by fallible men, transcribed repeatedly by fallible men and is now interpreted by fallible men. It is a work of man. No man was there when humans came to be... therefore there is no "eye witness account."There is a bucket of evidence out there. Creationists come to their conclusions. Evolutionists come to their conclusions. There is no hard proof that either is true. However, the creationists have an eye witness account in the scriptures.
The DNA molecule stores so much data and in precise locations and is so complex, it screams logic, design and therefore designer.
Strange then that evolutionary theory is used so often by biologists.As far as I'm concerned, all of these discussions belong in a philosophy class and not in the lab or any other classroom. There should also be no pressure to follow one belief or the other. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of where it all began and nobody has concrete factual evidence of what that is.
Evey class of importance can be taught and learned and progress made, without adding creation or evolution to the mix.
Which areas?Well, in some areas, that would be called prejudice.
Like I said above, I have never seen in and I have been in academia since 1991. So yeah, I deny it.I said that professional educators or scientists get bullied if they take any other view than evolution. You said that that was "bull". I said "go ahead, deny it".
So the short answer is , yes you get your "truth" from your interpretation of scripture. Why are you arguing with me about that point?Your post:
Originally Posted by Split Rock
This is just a sucker punch. If you want to say someone has interpreted something wrongly, I suggest you have an example.
Of course I have arrived at my belief through scripture, but also through application of the scriptures in my life.
You remind me of another creationist who posts here. He likes to lament about how in the Middle Ages, Theology was considered "The Queen of the Sciences." Science is different now.Science used to be something that was "knowledge of something that was observable, testable and repeatable". By this definition, scripture is science.
Proof of what? What kind of motif? A middle eastern motif?
I don't see why not. Simple RNA replicators probably don't fill God's grand vision of biodiversity. You need some way of producing biodiversity, and evolution would certainly fit that bill.[/qutoe]
If He can create this wonderfully made universe, I am certain that He could make RNA with all the necessary replicators He needed to start with just two of any and every "kind" of animal and get all the biodiversity we have today
Could God create one simple life form and then allow the laws in his creation produce the biodiversity we see today?
Yes. Of course.
If God were creating each species separately, why would we see a nested hierarchy? Why don't we see mammal/bird intermediates, or species with three middle ear bones and feathers? Why do we only see the pattern of homology that we would expect from evolution?
I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.
Many animals share similar structures, body parts and systems. This is not proof of evolution but proof of a common designer.
If the evidence in the creation were consistent with evolution, could it be considered true?
Could "what" be considered true, evolution or creation? Any and all evidence is used to support both camps. This is due to the fact that we only have one bucket of evidence and two theories who both use it as evidence for their theory.
I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.
I would think that mammal/bird intermediates would only be seen if there was evolution. The fact that there isn't is not proof of evolution but proof that it is false.
Many animals share similar structures, body parts and systems. This is not proof of evolution but proof of a common designer.
"I don't believe that creation should be taught in schools. However, I don't believe that evolution should be in schools either."
What should be taught is schools?
and this seems to be a pattern of yours, accusing posters of not providing explanations.Seems to be a pattern with this poster.
I am still waiting for her to show the laws she claims exist, that force the teaching of evolution.
Everything else. We don't need to tell a kid that the giraffe evolved from "whatever" or anything to do with creation in order to study the giraffe, it's habits and habitat.
Similarly, we don't have to know anything about evolution or creation to study the parts of plant cells, animal cells, the water cohesion tension theory, xylem and phloem cells, aerodynamics of airplane wings, Boers laws of gasses, stiochiometry, that water boils at 100 degrees C unless the barometric pressure changes, and how metals are smelted and hardened.
All of these things can be taught without muddying the water with what happened 6000 or more years previous. That is irreverent.
Yes, I heard, the Discovery Institute is a treasure trove of jobs where you can get gobs of money for doing nothing at all but promoting creation.At which point they can go on to have lucrative careers at places like the Discovery Institute, who will pay them money to do very little.
It's not as if people like Behe and Dembski are living in the poor house.
And, strangely enough, all of the one's that have been seriously analyzed have turned out to be fakes.
Also, how does finding giant skulls in South and North America, which the Bible doesn't depict at all, give credence to anything in the Bible?
So, let me see if I understand this correctly.
You claim that the human body is getting less and less healthy as time goes on. To show this, you don't cite a study, or a medical journal, or a paper, or even some rambling blog.
Your source is an 87 year old man. That's it. On his memory and limited experience alone, you make a blanket statemetn on the entire human race.
Jack, you fascinate me.
Interesting... lets look at some questions related to your comments to avoid in school because you don't like the theory of evolution:Everything else. We don't need to tell a kid that the giraffe evolved from "whatever" or anything to do with creation in order to study the giraffe, it's habits and habitat.
Similarly, we don't have to know anything about evolution or creation to study the parts of plant cells, animal cells, the water cohesion tension theory, xylem and phloem cells, aerodynamics of airplane wings, Boers laws of gasses, stiochiometry, that water boils at 100 degrees C unless the barometric pressure changes, and how metals are smelted and hardened.
All of these things can be taught without muddying the water with what happened 6000 or more years previous. That is irreverent.
Francis Collins is a believer in Biologos. This is an example of a great deception in the church.bhsmte said:Some really smart people would disagree with you, including this devout Christian: Francis Collins. Not his remark; "trying to do biology without evolution, would be like doing physics, without math."
Francis Collins is a believer in Biologos. This is an example of a great deception in the church.
Romans 1:22New International Version (NIV)
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
This group is an apostate group. They fall into the group that this scripture speaks about.
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?