Featured Gravity and the Expanding Universe

As I previously said, you shouldn't confuse the scientific usage with the everyday colloquial usage.

Try, for example: Scientific theory - "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation" [my emphasis]

I've seriously lost count of how many times I've had to correct this for clueless creationists, let alone the number of times I've seen other people doing the same. Why don't creationists ever do their homework?

 

The bible is disjointed, incoherent, and riddled with contradictions. I took it seriously for a while before I learnt to think for myself.

And yet it is the results of the scientific method that are allowing you to type these words and have them seen all over the world...

 

Example? Scientists know perfectly well what observation means - as do most people who discuss the science of evolution (at least in my experience). We can observe the copious evidence for evolution* (for example, the link I gave you above and you've ignored). Genetics could have completely falsified evolution - instead, we could now make the case from genetic evidence alone.

* as well as the actual process and mechanism of evolution. The only limitation is the fact that we have limited time, so cannot (obviously) observe the result of millions of years of evolution.

 

That doesn't make any sense. Regardless of whether god gave us the brains to do it or not, the process we used to do it is the scientific method - the same method that we use to come to conclusions about evolution and cosmology.

Humans are apes.

 

Any evolution that happens of course would be happening according to the way nature works -- physics/chemistry.

Believers in God that accept the New Testament learn that God created all that is (all things), and therefore we learn that He created the very laws of nature.

In other words, physics/chemistry.

In other words, anything that happens in nature would and could only be, for such a believer, of course, simply God's own work/design unfolding -- the actions of nature are a result/outcome of the creator of nature.

Creating Nature, God would then be the designer of all that Nature does.

So, for a believer in God and also the contents of the New Testament, any aspect of Nature is God's own outcome He caused.

 

The fact that people fit into that classification is evidence for evolution. And no, Adam was a myth. We know that, you may not, but any rational person can understand this. And I love it that you will grasp at straws and believe any article that seems to give you hope for your myth.

I tell you what, if you want to ask questions ask one well formed question per post. If you post foolish nonsense, as you did with an article form a "Men's Health" section of a nontechnical internet article you will just be laughed at.

As I have said before until you learn the basics of science you cannot learn and you continually demonstrate that you do not even understand the basics in your posts. You might have taken classes, but it is possible to take classes and pass if one merely parrots what one has heard. Understanding it often a bit deeper.

And no, do not insult me by claiming that my beliefs require faith when you have no understanding of them or even the basics of the science we are trying to discuss. You have faith. That is your downfall. It gets in your way of learning. I try to avoid faith since it is an obstacle to coming to a true answer.

 

Sounds to me as if you are saying Paul is referring to the Periodic Table.
Surely Paul was Not referring to the Periodic Table elements, but rather the elementary things, the base things, as in the wicked acts of men.
Whether politically wicked, merchants of doom's day weapons, or clergy who promote violence ( war ).
2 Peter 3:7 connects the day of judgement to the destruction of the ungodly , Not to ' Earth which abides forever ' according to Ecclesiastes 1:4 B.
By the executional words from Jesus' mouth is what will bring about a new righteous society - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-16
Earth will Not be moved according to Psalms 104:5.
Just as Earth was Not removed in Noah's day, so Earth will Not be gone, just the wicked will be gone - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35.
This is Not biblical imagination, but what the Bible really teaches, what we can learn from the Bible as God's Word.
Remember what Psalms 78:69B says ____________________________

 

And your article is garbage. It is from a non-technical source that does not even understand the word "theory" in the sense that they tried to use it. Once again your posts attest to a total lack of education in the sciences.

By the way, pulling verses from the Bible and reinterpreting them in light of what we know now is a losing strategy. The Muslims have been doing this longer and better. In effect you just claimed Islam to be true.

 

No one does not get to do that. Where is it okay in Christianity to accuse others of your sins? And what makes you think that my research was just a few minutes? Don't you know that other creationists have made the same incredibly foolish claim?

And once again you try to reinterpret a vague verse to something that we know today. I can find far clearer verses that lead to Flat Earth claims. Here is a hint, if you have to rely on single verses taken out of context you it is all but guaranteed that you have nothing. I am not playing this foolish game.

Let's discuss the nature of evidence. Once you understand it you too will understand that there is no scientific evidence for the beliefs of creationists.

 

Really?!? I am a geologist of over 50 years. Tell me what objective verifiable evidence is in science.

 

Wrong definition for theory in terms of science. In science it does not include speculation nor contemplation

Definition of scientific theory | Dictionary.com

noun
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution

 

As soon as you accept that evolution happens, i.e. that species can change according to the mechanism of variation and selection - something that we can directly observe (in fact we can observe one species turning into another, but that doesn't really matter to the point), then, if you're going to reject the idea that a new genus can result from lots and lots of those small changes, over a long period of time, you'll need to propose a new mechanism that limits those little changes from building up into large changes. A mechanism that, as far as I know, nobody has any idea about and which has certainly never been observed.

There is no qualitative difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" - they work in exactly the same way, using exactly the same process - macroevolution is just lots of microevolution built up over a large number of generations.

So, what process do you think stops one 'kind' from turning into another due to lots of small changes (that you accept do happen)?