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.
That's not the literal reading of the Bible YEC people insist on, though, is it?Actually if you read the Bible Moses and Peter indicate that a day is 1000 years. That means creation in the Bible began 13000 years ago at the end of the last glacier age. Science then can pretty much confirm the account in Genesis is accurate and true. OEC could also true when you look at the Bible as 'shadows and types'.
Moses was there at the beginning of the old testament, Peter was there at the beginning of the Church as he was preaching on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out. Even this is what apostolic succession is based on.
I'm sure this is just an honest typo, which happens to the best of us.
The so called Big Gang is a Kubbalah belief going back at least to Abraham.
- evolutionary theory is THE most strongly supported theory in all of science. That it offends your particular superstitious views is YOUR problem, not science's.
You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel?
I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.
It's not absurd, it's a basic scientific concept. Every discipline of every branch of science that has ever inquired into the origins of biodiversity has supported the theory of evolution. No other scientific theory has been as rigorously tested under scientific conditions. Not a single one of those literally billions of experimental data points suggests evolutionary theory is wrong.You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.
On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
And the Pope.Most strongly supported might be overstating it, but it is very strongly supported. That is why your fellow Catholics, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, are signed up to it.
It's not absurd, it's a basic scientific concept. Every discipline of every branch of science that has ever inquired into the origins of biodiversity has supported the theory of evolution. No other scientific theory has been as rigorously tested under scientific conditions. Not a single one of those literally billions of experimental data points suggests evolutionary theory is wrong.
Most strongly supported might be overstating it, but it is very strongly supported. That is why your fellow Catholics, like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala, are signed up to it. The difference is that they are world famous biologists, and you probably know about as much about biology as I do.
You expect anyone to take you seriously when you come out with this drivel? I don't even need to address it, it is that absurd.
On the subject of macro and micro evolution I suggest you learn more about the subject as there is a clear distinction between the two. Here is a webpage to inform yourself http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
Complex mechanical organisms have been found where the 'gradual change leads to large change' hypothesis completely falls down and so far no solution has been found. So yes, there are gaping holes in the evidence for macro-evolution, I suggest you actually read up on them, unless of course you wish to remain wilfully ignorant.
Yes, I imagine closing your mind to the facts works well in maintaining your illusion. Can I suggest that you do as I did and perform an Internet search, using the words "the most supported theory in science".
You will find that an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists consider evolutionary theory to be the most robust of all scientific theories.
Your source says EXACTLY what I did! That micro evolution is simply evolution "on the small scale", while macroevolution is the accumulation of these changes on the "grand scale" of a 3.4 billion year time scale! Did you bother to read your own source, before foolishly rushing to type?
Before you rush off to collect your Nobel prize, please present your evidence for this "fall down."
yes, let's do that.So lets look at this differently.
Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.
And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.
I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..
To me, Evolution is proof of creationism.
Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!
Actually if you read the Bible Moses and Peter indicate that a day is 1000 years. That means creation in the Bible began 13000 years ago at the end of the last glacier age. Science then can pretty much confirm the account in Genesis is accurate and true.
You seem to be confusing "macro and micro evolution" as meaningful, discrete scientific things. They aren't.This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd. You seem to be confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution when I was perfectly clear that I was referring to the evidence for macro-evolution.
And to suggest there is more evidence for this than for example the theory of relativity is quite comical.
The purpose of the search was not to confer 'expert' status. It was merely to confirm that evolutionary theory is, indeed, the most highly regarded theory in science. The evidence is plainly there for you to read.
Oh, and on the subject of reading, I assure you that, in my 86 years, I have read more textbooks than you have had hot dinners.
Your differentiation is nothing more than a comparison of time scales. The mechanism employed is the same throughout, as YOUR source also makes clear!
What "convinces" you is irrelevant to scientific enquiry. The facts and the evidence will be revealed regardless. And please present the work of the "evolutionary scientists" who claim that evolution on the grand scale is unsupported.
Ya ... just tack on the word "modern" to a philosophy and start over ... right?I think you're deliberately misunderstanding how modern empiricism works. Its disingenuous, at best.
Have you not heard of this?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.
You seem to be confusing "macro and micro evolution" as meaningful, discrete scientific things. They aren't.
And there is indeed as much, if not more evidence for evolution as for the theory of relativity. Condescension not withstanding.
No.Are you saying Thalomide didn´t exist?
No.quatona said:Are you saying Pluto has disappeared?
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?