Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Pleeeease tell me you're trolling...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation vs evolution
- Thread starter Faithofchristian
- Start date
Pleeeease tell me you're trolling...
So you know what a "true" Christian is?
What about a Christian that recognizes that there are errors and inconsistencies in the Bible and still recognizes it as the source of Christian theology despite those errors?
You are thinking of science, the theory of evolution and those that accept the theory in terms of a belief system that you can believe or reject for reasons other than evidence. There are probably people that do believe science and the theory of evolution as if it were a belief system, but none that I know. Doing so is not a valid position within science.
Scientists can reject evolution, but they need to have valid reasons to do so. So far, the theory has held up. You don't need a valid reason to reject a religion, though some people who reject it do use valid reasons. You can reject it simply by stating you see no reason to believe, or have an alternate belief.
You and I are Christians, but we disagree over details. One apparently, is a difference in viewing the Bible as inerrant. I do not based on the evidence within the Bible itself, the authorship and history of that book. Scientists also disagree over details. A disagreement over details is not a rejection of the main theme.
Seems you are mixing languages and adding your own pseudo language.
Perhaps this would help the creationist believer
$the_cows_come_home = 1;
$question = "ask question";
do {
print ($question);
$question = "ask same question again";
} while(the_cows_come_home);
If you care about truth, acknowledging the existence of reality is a good start.
That is quite the uninformed, misleading comparison.
Evolution is not an article of faith. It is a scientific finding, supported by evidence.
Meanwhile, I am not sure that a Christian has to have much reverence for the Bible, nor what would constitute being against that book, but I guess that is for Christians to decide among them.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Sure I know what a true Christian is,
But the question is, do you know what a true Christian is ?
Let's say, there's errors and inconsistencies in the Bible, what did people not have to work with back at that time VS what we have to day to work with ?
Knowledge
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Yes acknowledging the existence of reality is a good start.
But what reality is to one person, may not be the same reality to another person.
That's why there's a conflict between,
Those who believe in the reality of Creation,where life had it's start
And those who believe in the reality of Evolution. Where life had it's start.
Uh, no, I don't think that is at all accurate.
Evolution has evidence behind it and is, to a large extent, testable. Or going by the proper term, falsifiable.
It is not a matter of opinion, and never was.
Why some theists insist on challenging it is not altogether clear. It is inherently a lost cause, and has no religious significance worth pursuing, either.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
What i'm saying is, If a person who truly believes in evolution, why would they go about condemning evolution, if they truly believe evolution is where life had it's start.
Look, I am not condemning evolution nor am I up holding it either.
Look, Charles Darwin, look at different species of animals and saw the similarity between two animals. That lead him to believe, could not one species evolved from another species. Thereby bringing the Theory of Evolution.
Look I've read Charles Darwin's books. And I can see what he's saying. And yes it is possible to have one species of a animal to evolve from another specie.
I have raised so many animals, and know they will crossbreed with each other.
So it's not hard to see one animal evolving from another animal.
I'm maybe going to give a mind blowing experience, take aquarium fish that you can buy in pet stores.
Take what is called a swordfish.it has a sword like coming from the end it's tail.
I heard the swordfish doing this but until I actually saw it for myself, in having aquarium fish and the swordfish.
The swordfish is about 2" inch's long.the male swordfish in the only one that has the sword coming from it's tail.
The female does have the sword coming it's tail only the male.
But as the female starts to get old or by some freak thing in her gens, she will start to develop the sword, changing from female to the male with male genitals.
I've seen this happen in having swordfish
I heard about it happening, but until I saw it for myself. So I know it's not some myth.
I've not heard of any other fish or any animal to be able to do this. But it does happen with Aquarium swordfish that you can buy out of pet stores or at stores that sale aquarium fish.
So I had a male and female, then it happen and then I had to go and buy another female.and separate the one from the other male to keep them from fighting.
You probably know what will happen when you have one female with two males, confined in one place.
So do i knock Charles Darwin, no, because I know that animals can crossbreed. Into developing another breed. Or changing from one to another. As with the swordfish.
So Charles Darwin theory of evolution, that one species of animal coming from another animal does happen.
But that doesn't change creation in my opinion.
Altfish
Veteran Member
You don't understand how science works.
Theories are questioned, challenged, debated on a daily basis; if someone were to disprove Evolution and come up with a better explanation, then fame and fortune awaits that person.
Good scientists who believe in evolution understand this and would love to disprove it, some have tried and the best that has happened is that it is slightly refined.
Beats me. But I must point out that you are melding evolution (the origin of different species) with abiogenesis (the origin of life).
While the two are definitely compatible with each other, there are important differences, not least among them that abiogenesis has not been demonstrated yet and arguably may never be, even if it turns out to have indeed been the origin of life in this planet.
Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable and amply supported by the available evidence, and therefore it does not make much sense to "believe" in it, much as one does not have to believe in gravity or electromagnetism.
The ToE is a lot better understood and better supported now that it was back then. It is also not quite how you seem to understand it by this example, although that may not matter in this case.
However, it really looks to me that you are not disputing Evolution proper, but rather Abiogenesis. And that is very much reasonable, far as demonstrable facts go, even if I personally do not share your stance.
I once tried to prove 'Pastafarianism' , but ended up eating the evidence... its a shame really, the evidence was quit compelling.
I do not. I only know what people tell me about there beliefs. I don't have an ability to see what is in their hearts or know what is in their heads. How am I to know the difference between a false true Christian and a true Christian that is sinning?
We don't have to assume them, they exist in the Bible. They certainly did not know as much as we know, but they were no more or less intelligent as far as I know. But the point is that many demand that the Bible be read as if it were true in every detail and word and that is not possible based on the evidence. I am not claiming the Bible is false. That is a different claim and one I would not make. But there is no evidentiary basis for the creation story, or the flood of Noah, but they are still theologically significant and offer us valuable lessons on our freedom, good and evil, and the lives would should strive to live. They do not have to be true to convey those messages.
The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. It is independent of how life originated. If life were found to have arisen by natural processes through abiogenesis or if it were found to have arisen through divine creation, it would not change evolution or the theory that explains it.
What Darwin noted was that species change over time. That all the evidence indicates that all living things share a common ancestry. All based on his study of the natural world, plant and animal breeding and the scanty fossil record of his day.
Again, you are mixing the theory of evolution, about the diversity and relationship of living things, with the creation or origination of life. These are separate and distinct concepts.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution, went about to show animals, plants, how they could have evolved. But yet found no evidence to prove that man himself came from apes.
There has been no evidence to prove man came from apes.
But yet some people will go about saying man evolved from the apes, but have no evidence to prove this.
That's why it's called The missing Link, to connect man to the apes.
Charles Darwin showed how he could connect all other species together, but when it came to man found nothing there to connect man to the apes.
So if your trying to say that man evolved from the apes, where's your proof to connect man to the apes. Which of yet hasn't been found. So all we have is people going around saying things without the proof to back them up to what they say.
If such a thing was found, to connect man to the apes, don't you think it would be brought up in every debate. But people don't bring it up all because there's been no proof that has been found to prove that man evolved from apes.
That even here, in a Thread someone posted "Evolution vs Creation" but in the whole comments section, nothing mentioned about man evolved from apes. Why is that, because to say such a thing, without proof to show man evolved from the ape, it would be useless to bring it up.
Many people have tried to connect man to the apes, but found the bones to be fake.
When people produce fake things, all it does it make it that much harder to believe.
But still nothing been found to connect man to the app.
That's why it's always been called The missing link.to connect man to the app.
Why do you suppose scientist keep quiet, about such things any more, because they know they would be made to look silly, when there's has not been anything found yet to connect man to the ape.
There's been many attempts to connect ape bones to human bones, but all was found to be fakes.
Now if something was found to connect man to apes, it would be heard around the world and on the news. Then there would be no questions about man and ape.
But yet as far as I know or heard of nothing yet that has been found to connect man to apes.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
Not time to answer in full now... but Charles Darwin did NOT write the Theory of Evolution, he wrote a book that after many years and his hypothesis being tested it has become accepted as a Theory