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. many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution. we have many scientific evidence against evolution as you can see here:the self replicating watch argument
Plenty of christians, many on this forum, are YECs.
The final thousand years of life on planet Earth is about to begin.
Dun-dun-duuuuuunThe final thousand years of life on planet Earth is about to begin.
And that's why you don't name any?i dont think so. many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution. we have many scientific evidence against evolution as you can see here:the self replicating watch argument
here is a list, including biologists:And that's why you don't name any?
Now you are going to have to pull up your socks and ell us exactly what you mean by creation. So far you have kept your personal beliefs a secret to the best of your ablility, but if you mean by "creation" what I think you mean, then most of the scientists on that list are (or were) not creationists.
I probably take evolution for granted even much more than I should. I often use it as an explanation of why the world is like it is without giving my thoughts the testing that good science demands.Those in denial of evolution heap much ridicule upon themselves. Why tie your faith to tenants utterly lacking in logical foundation? Good intentions only have so much value. Are the hosts in heaven impressed that you deny God's evolutionary plans and works? Peoples who lived thousands had good reasons to believe such things. But God has revealed much to our modern generations and accordingly, much, much more is expected of us.
More than a beautiful story, the first stories of Genesis have generated volumes of discussions and have generated entire civilizations. Johns Gospel itself opens by giving an understanding of Christ that comes straight from Genesis.Indeed much has been added to Christianity that does not belong. The creation myth is just one of those things. I believe that to best understand the bible, it is necessary to put the teachings of Christ FIRST--then, apply what the Master taught to understand what others have written in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, many have chosen to worship every word of the Bible instead. This practice has dramatically diluted the powerful message and teachings of Christ. The creation story is wonderful, but should NOT be taken as fact.
I certainly agree that ALL of the bible has value--even Genesis. But remember that these oral histories were first put down in writing thousands of years after the events depicted in them. Is it reasonable that great accuracy can be expected? It seems to me that it is far more likely that bits and pieces of truth are surrounded with much embellishment each time the story was re-told. I find it likely that Adam and Eve really lived, but were they the first humans? The great humans featured in the Old Testament--Moses, Abraham, David etc.--It seems likely that these people all existed as well--but their achievements have likely been revised again and again.More than a beautiful story, the first stories of Genesis have generated volumes of discussions and have generated entire civilizations. Johns Gospel itself opens by giving an understanding of Christ that comes straight from Genesis.
If I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?I hope you actually list them later in this post so that there is a bit more to go on instead of just a bare assertion...
Sure.
The point is though, that there are not other sources to validate the important christian claims. As I said, it's one thing to mention real people, places, nations, even events,... in stories. But that doesn't mean the entire story is correct. cfr: spiderman and new york city.
The fact of the matter is that no claim that is actually important to christianity (the supernatural bits, and even only on the person Jesus) is validated through other contemporary / independend sources. Not a single one.
It is not.
Half of what is mentioned in a marvel comic book would be validated by independent sources. New york, countries, places, companies, products, people, references to technology like the internet, cell phones, etc etc etc. All things that are demonstrably real.
But none of it, lends any credence to spiderman actually existing....
If you have a story with 100 independent embedded claims and you can validate 99 of them - that does NOT mean that the one claim left is ALSO true.
Historical significance, isn't really the same as historical accuracy, though.
Having said that, the historical "context" of the bible, is religious scripture/lore/mythology.
I get that you, as a christian, are unable (or just refuse) to see your bible on the same level as the Quran, the Bagavad Gita, the Iliad, etc. But the fact is, that it is just religious scripture. Just like so many other (mutually exclusive and equally unverifiable) religious scriptures...
This is a weak analogy. A global flood being true and the theory of evolution being falsified would certainly require physical evidence and demonstrable science. No belief would be necessary when a worldwide flood could be well evidenced - hence your analogy is weak being reliant on a belief to make it a fair comparison.I'm not taking anything out of context.
Invalidating a certain proposed explanation, does NOT, in ANY way, lend credence to some OTHER proposed explanation.
I'll prove it to you....
Suppose I have a belief that states that pixies make my grass grow.
There's a theory that says that some natural process is actually responsible for growing grass.
Suppose that theory is then falsified somehow.
Does that falsification lend ANY kind of credence to my "grass growing pixies" belief?
Obviously, it does not.
The only thing that would lend that claim any credence, is actual positive evidence in support of that particular claim.
Education is (or should be) challenging them to decide and think critically and to ask questions without regard to the prevailing dominant consensus. I'm the opinion of simply guiding them to prepare them intellectually, ethically, and to perhaps obtain that ability to forward new research and new understandings and new conclusions in the world of science or other.Not to mention, illegal.
"kids" don't get to decide what is good and bad science.
You have biology, and then you have the theory of evolution.There actually IS only one side to the argument in biology.
by creation i mean creation de novo and not a stepwise evolution.Now you are going to have to pull up your socks and ell us exactly what you mean by creation. So far you have kept your personal beliefs a secret to the best of your ablility, but if you mean by "creation" what I think you mean, then most of the scientists on that list are (or were) not creationists.
The more that we know about where we have been the more we know about where we are and where we are going. You cut off the true myth and you will become more blind to Divine Revelation. Jesus taught us that knowledge of the Genesis events is necessary He said "in the beginning it was not so" Genesis is mythic literature but it reveals Truth of human originsIndeed much has been added to Christianity that does not belong. The creation myth is just one of those things. I believe that to best understand the bible, it is necessary to put the teachings of Christ FIRST--then, apply what the Master taught to understand what others have written in the Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, many have chosen to worship every word of the Bible instead. This practice has dramatically diluted the powerful message and teachings of Christ. The creation story is wonderful, but should NOT be taken as fact.
No it doesnt. Its still a matter of faith with diverse opinions on creation even amongst christiansLook up Exploring Biblical Creation by Eric Hovind, if you can handle it, uses science to basically prove Biblical Worldview as fact.
If I understand your position correctly, you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?
This is a weak analogy.
A global flood being true and the theory of evolution being falsified would certainly require physical evidence and demonstrable science.
No belief would be necessary when a worldwide flood could be well evidenced
- hence your analogy is weak being reliant on a belief to make it a fair comparison.
So (probably no fault of your own) based on the assumption that I was talking about a belief that Noah's flood was true rather than not demonstrating it with actual evidence and actual science.
Education is (or should be) challenging them to decide and think critically and to ask questions without regard to the prevailing dominant consensus.
I'm the opinion of simply guiding them to prepare them intellectually, ethically, and to perhaps obtain that ability to forward new research and new understandings and new conclusions in the world of science or other.
Programming them what to think is indoctrination not education
You have biology, and then you have the theory of evolution.
1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.
2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.
Important distinctions should be made clear on what we are actually dealing with.
Three questions:Those in denial of evolution heap much ridicule upon themselves.
Except evolution says an ape leaves Boston, takes baby-steps to Los Angeles, and arrives as y-Adam.Moving 1 inch = micro movement.
Moving 1 mile (1 inch at a time) = macro movement.
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?