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 first learned about evolution being both a fact and theory when I was seven and it was explained simply but accurately at the wonderful educational exhibit I attended at the Australian Museum in Sydney, so I guess I was a bit of a slower learner, haha. At that age I already understood that many words have distinctive meanings. We had an entire segment about words with various meanings in my 2nd grade Language Arts class, so it wasn't complicated for me to grasp at all. Through everyday observation outside of school I also picked up on many words with various meanings. I knew that when people were discussing the sex of the baby of an expectant mother that they were referring to gender, and that it was different from the s-e-x meaning of adult intimacy.
I think children can more readily comprehend educational concepts because they haven't yet developed the cognitive dissonance present in many adults. My little sisters are already learning about evolution and understand the basics of it of ages 8 and 9. We're a Christian family and the church we attend, like all others we've belonged to in various cities we've lived in over the years, fully supports evolution as being compatible with our faith rather than tilting at windmills about it.
This site has many helpful and reputable resources that might be of assistance to you: http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIAjusttheory.shtml
Let's try this: I won't believe in macroevolution because it goes against Laws of Physics (Law of Cause and Effect & Law of Inertia), Laws of probabilities, Laws of Mathematics and II Law of Thermodynamics. The proofs are based upon circular reasoning....fossils proved in rocks, rocks proved in fossils.
Is it because it refutes the idea of Adam and Eve, original sin, and coming of Jesus? Or are there any other reasons?
This is your claim. The burden of proof belongs to you. It is a fallacy to ask someone to prove a negative.
Let's try this: I won't believe in macroevolution because it goes against Laws of Physics (Law of Cause and Effect & Law of Inertia), Laws of probabilities, Laws of Mathematics and II Law of Thermodynamics. The proofs are based upon circular reasoning....fossils proved in rocks, rocks proved in fossils.
You do realise that we have varieties of living things, existing now, that don't have reproductive systems as such !?
These threads crack me up. On one end I feel like the die hard anti evolution posters should just be ignored by the biologists and scientists on this board and just left to argue the specifics of their creationist theories between themselves. I only say this in the sense that your knowledge and time feels wasted as such people are in such a deep stage of denial that they are unconvincable of anything that contradicts their religion.
But on the other hand I'm sure there are many reasonable open minded people here who pass through here (lurkers come to mind) who do benefit greatly from the knowledge you guys provide. I don't need to name you but thankyou, because you have educated me also.
God gave us science. He gives us artifacts and the natural evidence that Evolutionary theory is based on. Different people have different explanations for what they see in the way of evidence. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has a different outlook then Darwin even though they are looking at the same evidence. Teilhard has a different perspective on original sin then the Church based on the information that we now have to work with.
Without sin or evil there can be no love and there can be no free will.
We all understand quite well that after billions of mutations and billions of generations, those E coli or any you care to name remained exactly the same infraspecific taxa within the species they started as. E coli remained E coli. Only the variation observed within the Asian population is seen among them. They never even have the possibility of becoming different infraspecific taxa within the species, because they never receive new genetic material, they always remain the same exact one with but minor variation.
These threads crack me up. On one end I feel like the die hard anti evolution posters should just be ignored by the biologists and scientists on this board and just left to argue the specifics of their creationist theories between themselves. I only say this in the sense that your knowledge and time feels wasted as such people are in such a deep stage of denial that they are unconvincable of anything that contradicts their religion.
But on the other hand I'm sure there are many reasonable open minded people here who pass through here (lurkers come to mind) who do benefit greatly from the knowledge you guys provide. I don't need to name you but thankyou, because you have educated me also.
I actually thought about this site last spring when I was taking my AP Biology exam (I got a 5 on it!) because of a recent discussion here.
You cannot, however, breed dogs to the place where it is a CAT.
That is what the evolutionists believe happened.
There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Christianity.
The majority of Christians are just fine with it.
Certain groups of Christians might have problem with it, but that does not represent all if Christianity. The question is malformed.
Just speak in the terminology which reflects the fact that Darwinist evolution is based on guesses, suppositions, could be's and possibly's. What's so difficult in presenting views which are commonly understood?
One rejects atheistic Darwinist evolution because it's no based on the scientific method. No Christian I know embraces Godless evolution, believing they're the product of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.
You know folks, I have always seemed to balk at the notion the planet is only 6000 years old, that is until I met the Grand Master of Creation. You see here is the thing, that our grand master of creation could have just as easily created the earth 6000 years ago but simply created it in its totality while the planet still had scientific evidence that suggested it was much older. . . . .
Have you heard of Billy Graham?
http://www.oldearth.org/billy_graham.htm
"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."
That suggestion keeps coming up over and over. Can anybody think of any reason in the world that God would create the universe in such a way? How does one accept this idea and exonerate God from the accusation of being deceptive?
This explanation has absolutely nothing going for it except that it reconciles the findings of science with an earth only 6000 years old. There's no other reason to suggest it. There is no religious reason to predict it and no scientific reason to predict it. It only has its merit as a rescue mechanism for the young earth hypothesis in its favor.
Sorry I am so confused with creationists argument that I sometime cant tell them apart from claims made by evolutionary biologists. Are you in support of the the theory of evolution or not because this statement is a statement that all life shares at least one common ancestor.
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?