This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
Yes. They may not believe in it the same way an atheist does (the way an atheist might think evolution can explain consciousness) but that doesn’t mean they must reject all aspects of evolution. They may simply believe evolution acted according to God’s design/plan. Which is why I’m sick of people acting like you need to believe the earth is only 6000 freakin’ years old to be a Christian. I know few Christians who actually believe that, no matter how outspoken YEC are on the internet.
Guess what? In the 1500s many Christians thought you had to believe the sun revolved around the earth to be a Christian. Funny how no one seems to make that claim anymore.
Guess what? In the 1500s many Christians thought you had to believe the sun revolved around the earth to be a Christian. Funny how no one seems to make that claim anymore.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Come on then, give us a reasoned, purely scientific explanation why, and what hypothesis you can offer in its place, that you have based on a vast and growing accumulation of genuine observations and experiments world-wide by many scientist of many different societies and religious beliefs.
Or, why you cannot accept that some unknown ancient scribe might have got it wrong. Only, he was wrong because he genuinely had no real evidence, expertise or experience available from anywhere to guide him.
Or, why you cannot accept that some unknown ancient scribe might have got it wrong. Only, he was wrong because he genuinely had no real evidence, expertise or experience available from anywhere to guide him.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@ArishMell The short version is that evolutionists use circular reasoning. The fossil is this old. How do you know it is found in this rock that is that old. How do you know the rock is that old? By the fossils we find in them. What is most interesting is that the recovering evolutionists is they all believe that someone else has done the science. When they go to find the data that backs up the theory they discover there is none. It is a house of cards built on sand. Just one minor example: We know that there is a discernible modification in the mitochondrial DNA every six generations. Nothing major. Not going to make a human or monkey or vice versa but if you peel away the changes you can discern a common female ancestor. Evolutionist use their infamous circular logic to to go back millions of years but if we take what we know and not what we are told we find the common female ancestors, there are three of them, about 5000 years ago. Strangely enough that coincides with the flood account we see in the Bible. Even more strange is that the three female ancestors are also found in the Bible. They are Noah's daughter in laws.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 The reasoning I snot as circular as you think. Geologists do use particular fossil species as marker "zones" for correlating different exposure, but the dating of rocks themselves is by physics, not biology.
No-one claims the theory of evolution has all the answers due to gaps and statistical uncertainties but neither has anyone produced a satisfactory, genuine alternative. Trying to hide behind the Bible is at best escapist, to nowhere. Warping honest attempts to understand the natural world to make it fit one old religion's old books is absurd and pointless.
It also fails to admit that Christianity is not the only faith and can claim no monopoly of dogma. Whereas science comes from people of all faiths and none debating, reviewing and agreeing real-life observations of the real world.
As for the notion that we are all descended from a few incestuous siblings in a single family, well. Yet that is the logical outcome of claiming that because it's in the Bible, it must be true that our ancestors were one, unmarried couple sprung into being by a celestial conjurer.
The Biblical Flood is silly too. Many old religions have flood myths, but only reflecting their own, highly-superstitious societies genuinely knowing little or nothing about the world beyond their own regions. Anyway, there is just not the water on the planet for a Waterworld-style inundation; and the marine transgressions that are world-wide land drowning, do not come and go over just a month!
[There is an amusing side to that. Some try suggesting the flood myth was a hazy folk-memory of the rise in sea-level after the last glaciation, filling the Mediterranean. After all, it had formed the ria called the English Channel. Yet that was some 10000 - 12000 years ago, at least 7 millennia before the Hebrews started to form the definite society the OT identifies. Also such people have obviously not considered the sea depths, nor looked at maps clearly showing the major rivers entering the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas! :-) ]
That "strange" coincidence is not that strange when you want to make it significant. The Bible is merely a collection of collated beliefs and fables set down by and for its own people within its own historical era. It is not dated, it is not correlated externally, and is easy to misuse by manipulators like Creationists.
It seems Creationism wants to reject both science - so why does it use the Internet? - and huge swathes of its own deity's work, because it is terrified of questioning the ideas of a few unknown men in one small tribal society some 2 to 3 millennia ago.
It's notable that Creationists and the followers of its bastard sect, "Intelligent Design", cannot explain why they are so determined that their cause must prevail and learning must be suffocated to suit. Some muscle in on running schools, but I think those have a deeper, darker motive than merely wanting everyone to believe silly old fables irrelevant to believing in God.
No-one claims the theory of evolution has all the answers due to gaps and statistical uncertainties but neither has anyone produced a satisfactory, genuine alternative. Trying to hide behind the Bible is at best escapist, to nowhere. Warping honest attempts to understand the natural world to make it fit one old religion's old books is absurd and pointless.
It also fails to admit that Christianity is not the only faith and can claim no monopoly of dogma. Whereas science comes from people of all faiths and none debating, reviewing and agreeing real-life observations of the real world.
As for the notion that we are all descended from a few incestuous siblings in a single family, well. Yet that is the logical outcome of claiming that because it's in the Bible, it must be true that our ancestors were one, unmarried couple sprung into being by a celestial conjurer.
The Biblical Flood is silly too. Many old religions have flood myths, but only reflecting their own, highly-superstitious societies genuinely knowing little or nothing about the world beyond their own regions. Anyway, there is just not the water on the planet for a Waterworld-style inundation; and the marine transgressions that are world-wide land drowning, do not come and go over just a month!
[There is an amusing side to that. Some try suggesting the flood myth was a hazy folk-memory of the rise in sea-level after the last glaciation, filling the Mediterranean. After all, it had formed the ria called the English Channel. Yet that was some 10000 - 12000 years ago, at least 7 millennia before the Hebrews started to form the definite society the OT identifies. Also such people have obviously not considered the sea depths, nor looked at maps clearly showing the major rivers entering the Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas! :-) ]
That "strange" coincidence is not that strange when you want to make it significant. The Bible is merely a collection of collated beliefs and fables set down by and for its own people within its own historical era. It is not dated, it is not correlated externally, and is easy to misuse by manipulators like Creationists.
It seems Creationism wants to reject both science - so why does it use the Internet? - and huge swathes of its own deity's work, because it is terrified of questioning the ideas of a few unknown men in one small tribal society some 2 to 3 millennia ago.
It's notable that Creationists and the followers of its bastard sect, "Intelligent Design", cannot explain why they are so determined that their cause must prevail and learning must be suffocated to suit. Some muscle in on running schools, but I think those have a deeper, darker motive than merely wanting everyone to believe silly old fables irrelevant to believing in God.