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.
No rabbit hole, just stating facts.
Funny you should say that. As of yet I haven't seen any evidence for evolution, only speculation.
Funny you should say that. Your deeply held fantasies require you to ignore everything contradictory to them.
I have asked many evolutionists how life began and many of them have replied "abiogenesis" so it is a claim of evolutionaries.
Do you mean this question?
It's a non-sensical question.How do you account for so many atheists believing that God does not exist when they cannot produce a skerrick of evidence to prove it.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists, who know far more about the subject than you or I ever will, do believe there is overwhelming evidence that supports evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolutionMany of these scientists are not atheists. Many of these scientists are christians.
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prizewinners.[3]
Also...
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.
Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?
How very deceptive of you to try taking a quote out of context. The very next sentence reads:
Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
Here is the entire letter with my emphasis:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
Still misleading. You can't reference a single Christian who promotes Godless Darwinist evolution. Christians are theistic concerning creation.
Write your paper then. I'm not going to dance for you.
Mountains of it here.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=Evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0,24
Is it fantasy when it can be observed, repeatedly tested and predicted?
ecco:
Also...
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.
Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in biological evolution?
You insist on using the term godless evolution. I used biological evolution.
Let's just call it evolution.
Over 13,000 christian clergy support evolution.
Now, again, how do you account for the fact that very many christians believe in evolution?
Though I think random evolution as the origin of species is ridiculous on the face of it, I have to agree with SteveB28 on this one point. There are many faithful Christian scientists who accept directed evolution (think, Divine GMO). There are also many nice, misguided scientists who attend Christian churches. Why should scientists be any different than the rest of us?Dr Francis Collins is the head of the Genome Project. He is also a devout Christian. I am sure that he would be delighted about your pronouncement of his faith.
Here is where SteveB28 shows that you are getting close to his ignorance and weakness. Still, his next statement is very true, and very important to understand:Oh my. Are there still some of you around?
Dear girl, all science is "theory"! Please learn this simple concept, even if you learn nothing else from my words.
Give your evidence then. Remember, links are worthless without content. You've been very consistent in your attempt to post worthless links and claim it's evidence.
I have asked many evolutionists how life began and many of them have replied "abiogenesis" so it is a claim of evolutionaries.
As is usual, this quote is almost certainly not by the famous person to whom it is commonly attributed, in this case, Einstein. However, It is a common sentiment among many very educated persons. One was C.S. Lewis, who made a very similar observation numerous times. For example:
you want to hold this specific article to a higher standard of evidence than anything else in the entire edifice of scientific knowledge?We are not talking about anything anywhere. We are talking about a specific article.
Can't defend the 6,000 years idea, but I can reasonably postulate that a Being of light could, under Einstein's theory of Relativity, oversee in 6 of His days natural processes that took 6 billion years on earth.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.
Um... I don't know that that works. Seriously, just get over the idea of a LITERAL 6 days, and this whole things gets much easier.Can't defend the 6,000 years idea, but I can reasonably postulate that a Being of light could, under Einstein's theory of Relativity, oversee in 6 of His days natural processes that took 6 billion years on earth.
Excellent review and glad this was developedFrom the Centre for Public Christianity, (CPX) a Centre that opened years ago with a letter of congratulation from our then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Christianity and Darwinism
Historically some of the most conservative Christians did not react to Darwin or evolution like today’s creationists. In 1855, four years before Origin of the Species was published, Charles Darwin was assiduously refining his arguments and collecting data in support of his theory. Darwin's key idea was that all life was descended from a common ancestor. Natural selection was the means by which life descended into its multiplicity of forms. In gathering his evidence, Darwin sought the assistance of Harvard University's professor of botany, Asa Gray. Gray is now regarded as America's foremost botanist of the nineteenth century. Few people were granted a preview of Darwin's explosive (and secretive) theory prior to publication. So it is a measure of Darwin's respect for Gray that he sent him an abstract in 1857.
Gray was born in upstate New York and raised in a Christian home. However in early adulthood his spiritual outlook had drifted into an agnostic rationalism then popular among north-easterners. But when Gray moved to Harvard in 1842 he chose not to join the spiritualistic, unorthodox Unitarian chapel services which most of his colleagues attended. Instead, Gray transferred his membership to an evangelical Congregational church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His return to an evangelical faith was steadfast. Gray became a leading defender of Darwinism in America. He corresponded with Darwin at length, often turning to a Congregational minister, G.F. Wright (also an advocate for evolution) for theological expertise when dealing with Darwin's agnosticism.
by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians
Despite his best efforts Gray never resolved Darwin's doubts. But this did not cause Gray himself to waver on either the scientific case for Darwinism, or its compatibility with orthodox Christianity. Gray was not a lone voice. Others including Princeton theologian James McCosh, James Iverach and Audrey Moore defended Darwinism in Britain as well as America. Indeed by 1867 the phrase 'Christian Darwinism' was already in use to describe the vigorous defense of the theory by prominent conservative Christians.
https://publicchristianity.org/library/the-history-of-creationism#.VigQOxArLUY
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?