This Forum is now inactive and has been replaced by a new Christogenea Forum. You may browse here but there are no updated threads or new posts since January 1st 2017. Forum members please see THIS NOTICE for information concerning your account at the new forum.
Ethelwulf wrote:I somewhat sympathize with wmfinck on how society is only presented two models. However its wrong to generalize evolution, like creation. There are many different evolution models and mechanisms. What is presented to society is the politically correct models of both creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and evolution (Neo-Darwinian Out of Africa). I think its wrong to equate all of creationism to YEC and evoution to OOA. While you guys understand this with creationism, you wrongy lump all evolution theories together. I've researched all these different theories for years.
I understand the forum rules and that I can't promote/support evolution here. However I would like to ask this if I may:
Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?
Kentucky wrote:Ethelwulf wrote:I somewhat sympathize with wmfinck on how society is only presented two models. However its wrong to generalize evolution, like creation. There are many different evolution models and mechanisms. What is presented to society is the politically correct models of both creationism (Young Earth Creationism) and evolution (Neo-Darwinian Out of Africa). I think its wrong to equate all of creationism to YEC and evoution to OOA. While you guys understand this with creationism, you wrongy lump all evolution theories together. I've researched all these different theories for years.
I understand the forum rules and that I can't promote/support evolution here. However I would like to ask this if I may:
Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?
The problem with evolution IMHO is that it was not the origin of life as from a big bang and a combination of primordial soups under the right conditions in contradistinction to a divine Creation. The second premise is that of 'kind after kind' or the integrity of the species (and in our case race) in contradistinction to a species evolving into another species. If you want to take into account all of the aberrations of nature through mutations, variations and adaptations, then that is another matter. I guess your putting forth the notion that there is a type of evolution that would satisfactorily fit into God's plan of the ages? Which must give recognition to "There's nothing new under the sun." lol.
If I had never read the Bible, then I guess I would be totally ignorant of any other proposition, but would still wonder who or what lit the fuse on the big bang. Furthermore, if I were a skeptic, I would want more than a string of coincidences and quasi-scientific theories to explain life on earth. The idea of evolving from mud or monkeys is not very appealing to my way of thinking.
Mark
Ethelwulf wrote:Would any of you believe in evolution if you never read the Bible?
Ethelwulf wrote:Evolution (chemical, biological etc) is a process only.
wmfinck wrote: Scientific explanation describes a known process, such as photosynthesis or animal reproduction, step-by-step in detail. A belief in Evolution is a belief in something not seen.
Confusion confusion, the jew is the author of confusion. Evolution is a process which has never been observed in Nature, and therefore it is actually not a process at all. The labeling of the ocurrences of variation among species as Evolution is a modern insistence which confuses the original issue.
Originally Evolution described the idea that higher species developed from constant and incremental minor changes which occured over presumably long periods of time among lower species. This is what my Catholic schools taught as "Evolution" and as "Science" in the 1960's and 1970's for the few years I suffered them.
But the labeling of species variation as Evolution (or "Micro Evolution", et al.) is a sleight-of-hand trick concocted so that the idea of Evolution as a concept can more easily be kept in the public arena. It is just as readily admitted that all species have an ability to variate within certain boundaries, and that ability was created along with any particular species which manifests it. The holy grail, so to speak, of Evolution is the changing of what is perceived as one species into what is perceived as another species, and this has never happened. Yahweh God created everything as He said, kind (species) after kind (species), although the labeling by man of what constitutes a species is also demonstrably imperfect.
Ethelwulf wrote:The "observe" part of the scientific method is not restricted to direct (eyewitness) observation. If it was then virtually nothing would be science, who has for example directly observed a mountain form? As another example, the Meteor Crater (Arizona) was never observed by anyone. It was formed by a meteorite impact around 50,000 years ago. We don't need to directly observe something to know it occurs/occurred.
Ethelwulf wrote:How do you explain many Christians (in fact the vast majority of them) believe in evolution? Is there really a contradiction with scripture?
Ethelwulf wrote:I'll probably go through your writings some time. When do you date Adam? Because this is what i've never understood with most CI. Where do the other races come from?
Ethelwulf wrote:Have you read Alexander Winchell's Pre-Adamites? That's a text closer to my own position. Winchell accepted evolution.
wmfinck wrote:Evolution theory is unproven and is actually contrary to sound science.
Kentucky wrote:wmfinck wrote:Evolution theory is unproven and is actually contrary to sound science.
That minor point is often overlooked as if evolution is scientific law, but it is still "theory." It may be a prevailing sentiment, but unless the rules of science have been changed, then evolution is on par with the flat earth theory. Ahem, but who cares about sound science these days? Certainly not academia.
Mark
Return to Creationism vs Evolution
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests