One can both accept the understandings of science and have faith. I don't understand why the faithful see them as either/or and thus try to make their beliefs "scientific."

 

In addition to trying to make their beliefs "scientific", they try to make science "faith".

 

I can't say why they do it for sure, but my guess is that they perceive science as chipping away at God. The god of the gaps idea.

...

 

One can both accept the understandings of science and have faith. I don't understand why the faithful see them as either/or and thus try to make their beliefs "scientific."

 

Having looked through some of the videos on youtube on 'Young Earth/Creationizm' there is some scientific validity to points usually made. But there is then usually a jump to the literal scriptures.

 

The best example is the global flood and Noah's ark. Is there evidence of massive floods or tsunamis of massive scale in Earth's past? Yes. Does it prove the biblical account of Noah? No.

 

If one took the rib of one living thing and created another living thing does it prove the story of Adam and Eve? No. Would something like that be only the work of God? Maybe not. We have labs creating new forms through bio-engineering nowadays. So God is not the only 'creator' it seems.

 

Were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed by the hand of God? Or was it a nuclear or nuclear-like attack from something or someone less devine?

 

Maybe there is basis fact in many of the scriptures and only the parts that was designed to make people fear God got canonized and real details were left out. Or maybe its just too many Ancient Alien episodes.

 

Standard theories leave a lot of gaps. But the gaps are certainly not proof the Biblical versions are the entire facts either.

My answers in Bold.

 

Thanks for the condescending partial answers. Do I need to explain that 'final form' just means 'current form'? I guess I do. And I understand closed/open systems perfectly. Thanks again for the tutorial. The sun 'sustains' life. It didn't create life. It's still not known what the 'spark' was that created life.

 

You are the type of person who drove me to study this stuff for myself. Your arrogance and insistence on portraying people as stupid makes you a pretty sad human being...not one that I want to interact with.

 

When I really studied this stuff in the mid-90s, there was very little creationist information out there. The internet was new. 99% of what I read and studied evolutionists writings. The questions I posed came from evolutionists themselves...their acknowledgements that our understanding, and especially the evidence for it, is incomplete.

 

So keep stomping on those that still have doubts so you can show us how smart you are.

 

BTW, there is no tree of the origins of man. There are not consistent transitional forms that go from start to finish. There are huge gaps that are filled by assumptions. In case anyone else is fooled by the link MF posted.

Thanks for the condescending partial answers. Do I need to explain that 'final form' just means 'current form'? I guess I do. And I understand closed/open systems perfectly. Thanks again for the tutorial. The sun 'sustains' life. It didn't create life. It's still not known what the 'spark' was that created life.

 

You are the type of person who drove me to study this stuff for myself. Your arrogance and insistence on portraying people as stupid makes you a pretty sad human being...not one that I want to interact with.

 

When I really studied this stuff in the mid-90s, there was very little creationist information out there. The internet was new. 99% of what I read and studied evolutionists writings. The questions I posed came from evolutionists themselves...their acknowledgements that our understanding, and especially the evidence for it, is incomplete.

 

So keep stomping on those that still have doubts so you can show us how smart you are.

 

BTW, there is no tree of the origins of man. There are not consistent transitional forms that go from start to finish. There are huge gaps that are filled by assumptions. In case anyone else is fooled by the link MF posted.

 

Yes, you should explain that when you say "final form" that you meant "current form" You have explained that now.

 

I did not say the sun sparked life. Nor did you either. What you attempted to say, was that evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And I replied that it does not, and said why. So then you simply shift your argument, after being shown to be incorrect initially, and said the sun didnt spark life or whatever. Evolution explains the development of life and its variety and complexity, it doesn't explain its origin, that is a different field of science.

 

As to being condescending toward you, I apologize, it is not necessarily my intent. However, you are saying enough stuff, and saying it consistently wrong, and it is wrong in the same direction each time (against evolution). If someone gets stuff randomly wrong, to me, that's one thing. But you aren't getting it randomly wrong. So, and this is not within my definition of condescending, I don't believe you. I don't believe you are studying this with a desire to find the truth. I believe you are positioning yourself that way, so that your arguments appear more credible. So, it is because I don't believe you, that I acted condescendingly to you, and for that, I apologize. I should have been more straightfoward.

What does ascribe to this tree mean?

Does he believe this tree to be true

I'd say we have a number of young earthers or flat earthers among our ranks here.

I am neither. I do not believe we came from Primates though. I am still waiting on a Evolutionist to answer me.

I am neither. I do not believe we came from Primates though. I am still waiting on a Evolutionist to answer me.

 

Humans are primates and probably share a common ancestor with other primates.

 

Timing the Primate Explosion | WIRED

Let me rephrase that for the freaking picky. Who believes we evolved from Apes? Is that better? And is Evolution ongoing? I think everyone knew what I was asking.

Nevermind then. :lol2:

Let me rephrase that for the freaking picky. Who believes we evolved from Apes? Is that better? And is Evolution ongoing? I think everyone knew what I was asking.

 

I am getting settled in for the debate on tv. So not going to look this up Jesse, but to the best of my recollection, we did not evolve from apes. We share a common ancestor with apes, in other words, we both evolved from the same common (now extinct) ancestor. Again, I might have this wrong, doing it from memory, but there are four primate species existing now that share a common ancestor. Us. Chimps. Apes. Orangutans. Now, it wasn't just us, homo sapiens. There were many hominid species, that were on our branch off of that common ancestor, but we are the one that has survived. The same for our other three "cousins."

 

Is evolution still occurring? This was answered earlier. To start, the definition of evolution. A change in the gene pool over time. That's the definition I know. So yes, it is still occurring. The gene pool changes every time a baby is born.

 

You should turn to the democratic debate now. And pray for inspiration

I will watch it just like I did the Republicans. A criminal, Socialist and three no names. Should be interesting.

Here's what I just don't get. There is nothing at all that disproves the existence of God (the faith), nor anything that says the science is flawed (obviously the science). The matter of Creation isn't mutually exclusive. The debates arise when one extreme or the other respects the opposite extreme view.

Yes, you should explain that when you say "final form" that you meant "current form" You have explained that now.

 

I did not say the sun sparked life. Nor did you either. What you attempted to say, was that evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And I replied that it does not, and said why. So then you simply shift your argument, after being shown to be incorrect initially, and said the sun didnt spark life or whatever. Evolution explains the development of life and its variety and complexity, it doesn't explain its origin, that is a different field of science.

 

As to being condescending toward you, I apologize, it is not necessarily my intent. However, you are saying enough stuff, and saying it consistently wrong, and it is wrong in the same direction each time (against evolution). If someone gets stuff randomly wrong, to me, that's one thing. But you aren't getting it randomly wrong. So, and this is not within my definition of condescending, I don't believe you. I don't believe you are studying this with a desire to find the truth. I believe you are positioning yourself that way, so that your arguments appear more credible. So, it is because I don't believe you, that I acted condescendingly to you, and for that, I apologize. I should have been more straightfoward.

 

You really should be using "IMO" in your posts because all of the points I brought up earlier in the thread came from evolutionists questioning current understanding. The questions that I brought up came primarily from reading evolutionists' materials not creationist information, though I'm sure that exists somewhere out there on the web.

 

Back 20 years ago evolutionists would talk openly about gaps in the theory and adapting the theory as new information comes to light. I don't think they will openly 'criticize' evolution any more because creationists and others will try to use those words against them to show that evolution is wrong.

 

Your problem is that you're an advocate. Whether you personally consider yourself pro-evolution or anti-religion doesn't matter to me. If you're not curious about what the answers to life are I don't give a crap about what you think. You're not interested in learning about or considering alternate theories (like the Michael Behe book I mentioned in my earlier post as just one example). Thank God (ironical) that scientists have questioned the status quo of evolutionary theory and continued to find better answers.

 

When evolution was first conceived and studied, did they conceive the age of the earth to be 4 billion years or whatever the current estimate is? No. They thought in terms of maybe a million years or a few million years based on what we knew at the time. Well if we didn't question that and try to learn more, we'd still think the earth was 10 million years old.

 

Do all scientists agree on gradualism/punctuated equilibrium? No they don't. And there are other topics within the details that are openly questioned, except by you apparently since all aspects of the theory are settled in your mind and all scientists agree with you.

 

As I said in the my first post, I'm not an advocate of evolution or creationism. I believe both have flaws in their current understanding. If some day I find out God created the earth in 7 days, that's fine with me. And if I find out he didn't, that's fine with me too.

 

If tomorrow an adapted theory of evolution comes out with info to back it up, I will study it because I will want to learn. Obviously you won't since there's nothing further for you to learn about the topic.

If any of you Republicans still believe the Earth is flat and 6,000 yrs old, please give the evidence to advance your argument and also explain why, along with Kim Davis, you are supporting either Huckabee or Carson for POTUS.