So no real objections, just an emotional response of accusations without substance.
You know, I was wondering why a "Christian" would so strongly defend unprovable science.....but researching the Methodist church, I discovered why. You guys sold out to science long ago! When choosing between God (as in directed creation) and the musings of science (everything happened by undirected chance) apparently your founder didn't want to appear to be "uneducated" or "unintelligent".....was it about saving "face" rather than saving "faith"?
The official position as stated on the Methodist website is..
."The official statement on Science and Technology says in part, "We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."
Actually they are right.....there is no conflict with their "theology"....but there is conflict with the scriptures.
That said, I understand your rhetoric is as empty as all the other people who stake their lives on assumption and assertion rather than stick to the directions in their Creator's instruction manual. We are given that choice for a reason IMO.
Science does not have a standard of proof.
LOL...yes we know. But the fact remains...if you can't prove something, you have no facts...you have 'beliefs'. Your church has simply swapped one belief system for another....according to Jesus, neither will be of benefit at the end of the day however. (Matthew 7:21-23)
When you say adaptation, do you mean the evolution of traits based on genetics, physiological versatility or developmental flexibility. It is important, since most people do not understand any of it.
This is why so many people accept it.....it is marketed very carefully, making all the science fiction look like science fact. It counts on ignorance and gullibility in some....a desire to be accepted as "intelligent" and "educated" by others.....and also as a way to kill God off for the avowed atheists. Depending on your agenda. it serves all those who question the Creator. I wonder who came up with it?
Using adaptation to suggest the slow evolutionary process of macro-evolution, is an unprovable assertion, not based on anything that can be established by scientific testing of any kind. Suggestions are rife in all the literature. Suggestions are not facts.
Have you never heard of "leading the witness" in a court case? No one leads their witnesses more than science in this issue.
Evolution takes place within a taxon.
Where did the originals come from? For there to be a "family" there needs to be parents who have the same genetics and DNA code. Science guesses about the processes and provides detailed charts containing all the assumptions about the "branching".....but they can't produce the roots of the tree. Nothing grows without roots.....roots cannot grow without a seed germinating.....if science wants to present a tree, it needs to provide the whole picture.
Artificially establish a limit without support is religion. Not science. Evolution takes place within all populations and is not limited to families.
No one expects this but creationists.
Christ was a creationist. In fact, he was personally involved in creation, so in order for a "Christian" to reject creation is to reject Christ and his direct role in it. The scripture he used contained the Genesis account of creation and he referred to it as fact.
It comes down to choice then doesn't it? Those who choose science as their 'religion' (belief system) rather than to accept the word of God on faith have to answer to the judge of all of us, not me.
Except the evidence shows us that at one time, they were not. Evidence that you only seem to be able to address by dismissing it and waving your hands.
Please provide this "evidence" that canines and felines were not always members of their set taxonomies. The only proviso I make is that it must be based on real evidence, which means there can be no assumption, assertions or suggestions included in that evidence....just provable facts. OK?
Let's see how you go with that......?
There is no scientist sitting around waiting for his dog to give birth to cats. How ridiculous.
There are no creationists sitting around doing that either. Are you suggesting that those who believe in an Intelligent Creator are of necessity, "stupid"? Or does it just suit the evolutionist's air of superiority to imply that this is the case?
No. It is science, based on evidence, that you obviously neither understand nor can you refute with evidence.
Science cannot provide any evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone produce real evidence to back up their guesswork. Can you produce proof that whales were once four legged furry land animals? Again, there can be no guesswork....just real proof. If you cannot provide real proof, it means you have no facts.
I believe that the great con artist has woven his magic, getting perfectly intelligent people to accept a fairy story. It apparently works on believers and non-believers alike......
Do you accept the existence of this personage that Jesus identified as "the ruler of this world"?...or did he evolve too? (1 John 5:19)
Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to maintain dissonance.
Not that you could be suffering from this very affliction yourself...?
If you are a Christian, you can't have your cake and eat it too in this issue. A sell out is a sell out.
There is no room for evolution in the Bible.....what there is room for is the fact that the creative "days" were NOT 24 hour periods. YEC is a reason why so many discard creation as ridiculous. The literal 6,000 year, 24 hour day scenario does not fit creation at all. But if the creative days were each millions of earth years in length, then slow and deliberate, separate acts of creation are accommodated. It also allows for an old earth because there is no timeframe between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
The preparation of the earth for habitation may also have taken millions of years. The Creator is not constrained by earth time. Creation fits with what science knows......it just doesn't fit what science assumes.
No one suggests that this is part of the theory of evolution. Scientists have not established the separate question of the origin of life. We do not know how life originated. People may believe in many different things, but those beliefs remain unsupported.
Here we go
....typical evolutionists response....a wave of the hand and claims that the issue of how creatures may have changed over time and origin of life are unrelated......what nonsense!! If you find out who the originator of life is.....every other question about natural science is answered. If the creative days were not 24 hours then creation fits what science can prove.
You creationists just love to erroneously conflate the origin of life with the evolution of life. You can set clocks by it.
LOL....where did life come from is the most important question we could ask, in case you hadn't noticed. Science cannot answer it....and they don't look like they ever will.....to them, life is just a fluke, and undirected chance made it into everything we see on earth and even in the universe.....who can believe that?
I often hear about this "magical proofing" used by evolutionists to deride those who believe in the Creator......but it appears that evolutionists have their own version of "magical proofing".....but they just can't admit it.
The snow job is pretty complete if you ask me.....
