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.
If you know you’ll disagree beforehand, it’s more a non-compromising statement than a question really... so I won’t even attempt to address it as such.
But, I’ll make a statement too, I’m not forced to ignore mainstream biology
, and don’t entirely, that’s why I said in my opening post that I was puzzled because some could be “completely” sold on evolutional biology alone (a one in a gazillion chance – zero in my book) as the answer, and then consider creation by almighty God a fairy tale.
its just variation, so why to call it evolution?
Biological evolution is a particular kind of population variation, i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. That is a modern definition of biological evolution.its just variation, so why to call it evolution?
Why?
There are plenty of christians who consider evolution to be the process by which god creates species. More then there are "special creation" creationists.
They don't have to ignore or deny the evidence of reality, like "special creation" creationists have to do. They don't have to assume that reality is misleading. They don't have to ignore science based on religious beliefs.
Clearly, any stance where you can actually accept the evidence for what it is, will be more rational then any stance where you have to ignore/deny the evidence for no justifiable reason, right?
I think you are failing to note the word “alone” that I generally try to follow the words “evolution” and “biology” with in my comments, meaning I do not subscribe to the notion that they “alone” are the answer to why we are here. I do not deny some form of evolution or variation is part of that process, but it still puzzles me that anyone would consider such a means to have come about on its own without God, and the mysteries by which He accomplishes things.
If your beliefs require you to deny evolution, then that is exactly what that means... that you have to ignore/deny mainstream biology.
See? Exactly like I said....
You need to deny solid science.
And you have to do that, on the basis of a religious belief that isn't rationally justifiable (since it flies in the face of mainstream biology).
So..... yeah.
You are free to believe whatever you want off course. But surely you can see how this would not and could not be a rational position. Any position that demands one to ignore/deny the evidence of reality, is irrational by default.
There are plenty of christians who consider evolution to be the process by which god creates species. More then there are "special creation" creationists.
They don't have to ignore or deny the evidence of reality, like "special creation" creationists have to do. They don't have to assume that reality is misleading. They don't have to ignore science based on religious beliefs.
Clearly, any stance where you can actually accept the evidence for what it is, will be more rational then any stance where you have to ignore/deny the evidence for no justifiable reason, right?
That is what evolution is.
Changes / variation which occur during reproduction and which are passed on to off spring.
Generation by generation, these changes accumulate.
1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1 = large number.
so evolution is true even if the bible is true and even if common descent for all living things is false??Biological evolution is a particular kind of population variation, i.e. changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. That is a modern definition of biological evolution.
Note that although it requires changes to the heritable characteristics of individuals, it applies to populations, not individuals.
Evolution is a well-evidenced theory of biological diversity.so evolution is true even if the bible is true and even if common descent for all living things is false??
Evolution is a well-evidenced theory of biological diversity.
Universal common ancestry is a reasonable inference from that theory.
The Bible is irrelevant to the discussion.
Because from a scientific perpsective it is nothing but an old book of stories, not scientific evidence relating to evolution.Much of the Bible is well-evidenced in prophecy, including a lot of Genesis' history.
Isn’t universal common ancestry a reasonable inference (the account interpreted literally or not) from it as well?
How could it be completely irrelevant to the discussion?
Because from a scientific perpsective it is nothing but an old book of stories, not scientific evidence relating to evolution.
In your opinion. Is there any way to test it?Genesis history was most-likely passed on from Adam and his descendants to Moses, through oral then written accounts.
Historians? I thought we were talking about scientists.Such recording, from eyewitness accounts to written stories through successive generations is common, lately used by Native Americans. Are they to be considered just old stories, to be disregarded completely and of no use to historians?
In your opinion. Is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?Jesus regarded Genesis as real history.
Not it if can be empirically verifiedIs history disregarded completely by science?
No, I guess not. Just projecting backward like evolutionist often do.In your opinion. Is there any way to test it?
You're right, just trying to broaden the discussion hoping to create some neutral ground.Historians? I thought we were talking about scientists.
Certainly not, but He did seem to refer to Genesis 1:26-27 when He said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." He said man was created "from the beginning of the creation," not after a period of evolution. Then in Mark 10:7 Jesus quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 when He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." He also spoke of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:38-39. Just saying...In your opinion. Is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?
It all comes back to whether you believe the Bible or not, doesn't it.Not it if can be empirically verified
Right. But "evolutionists" eventually have to come up with some empirical evidence supporting their projection before anyone will take it seriously.No, I guess not. Just projecting backward like evolutionist often do.
the subject is not without interest, but keep in mind that science and history proceed with entirely different epistemological assumptions.You're right, just trying to broaden the discussion hoping to create some neutral ground.
Just saying... He used those stories in exactly the same way as a liberal preacher would do who thought they were just stories.Certainly not, but He did seem to refer to Genesis 1:26-27 when He said in Mark 10:6, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." He said man was created "from the beginning of the creation," not after a period of evolution. Then in Mark 10:7 Jesus quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 when He said, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh." He also spoke of Noah and the flood in Matthew 24:38-39. Just saying...
Something like that. In my personal opinion as a Christian, the authority of Scripture rests on its divine inspiration, not on its adherence to any particular literary genre. No essential doctrine requires that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history, only that it is divinely inspired.It all comes back to whether you believe the Bible or not, doesn't it.
In your opinion, is there any way to verify what His thoughts were?Just saying... He used those stories in exactly the same way as a liberal preacher would do who thought they were just stories.
Have you actually read The Blind Watchmaker (the source of that quote)? Because if you had, you'd know that Dawkins entire argument is arguing that life is not the product of intelligent design, but rather natural forces.
Quote mining a single sentence from that book doesn't support your argument. Especially given that Dawkins never proposes a methodology for detecting design, and is using the term in a colloquial sense in the context of that quote.
The native Americans have story tellers who memorize the histories they tell. Such an historical narrative is considered to be more accurate then a written account in cultures that maintain them.Genesis history was most-likely passed on from Adam and his descendants to Moses, through oral then written accounts. Such recording, from eyewitness accounts to written stories through successive generations is common, lately used by Native Americans. Are they to be considered just old stories, to be disregarded completely and of no use to historians? Jesus regarded Genesis as real history. Is history disregarded completely by science?