That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.
What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.
I believe Genesis literally. Although I won't throw out the possibility that the universe is old.
Evolution is just a theory though, and I believe it's wrong and inaccurate. It's unproven and is a mere speculation of how life could have arose.
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
Not true.
Being confused about the difference between abiogenesis and evolution has nothing at all to do with "him no longer being a creationist." I am a creationist and yet evolution is a fact.
Your post is mainly baiting, blanket statements and misinformation.
So because one person is stupid, we must not ignore this fact and judge all people on the basis that some people are stupid? OK. Your logic makes perfect sense. :doh
I don't disagree, but he is basically saying anyone who is a creationist is stupid. Some very intelligent people who are creationist for whatever reason can not be judged as stupid based on that belief alone.
Yeah, I know.
He's different in religion, he refuses to look at anything but the Bible, which is a little closeminded.
Faith does not require objective evidence, science does.
That depends on what you mean by "creationism". If you believe that Genesis is to be taken literally, then yes, I can see how you would find it offensive. If you believe that evolution was the way that god created life, then there is no need to be offended.
What I find absolutely incomprehensible is that some people still, now in the 21st. century no less, say that evolution is "just a theory" and is not to be taken as accurate.
I consider it more a debate between the educated and the ignorant.
It is illogical, and not paying attention to facts to say that the Earth isn't older than 6,000 years old. I'm religious and I do believe in evolution, and I really don't see how people seem to think that those two are incompatible. Evolution as a theory doesn't say anything about how life began, just how live changes, and adapts to the world around us.
What is a scientific theory?
The theory of evolution is not just a theory. It is a scientific theory.
A theory can be revised and still be wrong. Evolution has not been proven and is a mere speculation of how life arose.
Well, Mayor Snorkum will explain where religion and evolutionary science cannot be reconciled.
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the assertion that the random genetic changes the provide the variances upon which selection occurs are indeed random. They're caused by faulty gene splices, or damage to the chromosomes by radiation or other process, and many other events driven by statistical chance. In pure evolutionary theory, there is not guiding hand, there is not foreordained path to the appearance of man. Evolution states, and this is what got Darwin in hot water, that man was not granted a preferred place in the animal kingdom, he is just one more animal in the zoo.
Most religions place man in some special place in the eyes of the Creator, and thus cannot be reconciled with Darwin.
On the contrary, it is.
Tell me, when have I ever discussed the term creationist as anything other than a literalists? Hint: never.
Furthermore, I have made it abundantly clear in the past that when I say creationist, I mean YEC. Not the varying degrees of belief between YEC and atheist. So you interjecting I'm wrong on the basis of a definition of creationist I have never used here and made clear that I never will use is dishonest.
Try again. And with less fail this time.
Your post is based on a position I have clearly stated I have never made.
Again, try with less fail.
So what happens when all of the objective evidence he has conflicts with his religious belief?
How does he mesh the billions of year old light he studies with the gapping problem of only 6,000 years?
Amusing you berate me for things you do yourself. Hypocrite much?
YECs are stupid. Probably because the belief itself requires a level of stupidity. It may be that stupidity is not required to start believing in it, but stupidity is required to maintain it.
For instance, the belief that the flood was indeed true. Despite the testable principles of water that a 5 year old can test in his tube. One YEC argued that God made layers contrary to how water acts. Except that he just argued God lied to man. Hence why I have argued in the past that YEC requires a liar God. And hence why YECs cannot be deemed to be Christians.
Indeed. Blackdog has completely failed to understand that the creationist detractors here aren't taking digs at theistic views on evolution. They're taking digs at the crackpots who think the world is only 6,000 years old.
I always find it amusing how people say evolution is only a theory. And then go use a pratical application of it.
Faith does not require objective evidence, science does.
Faith based organizations is what I meant to say. I was not talking about or including government aid.
In the end it is irrelevant to my point. The point is lots of faith based money going to charity etc.
Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking. You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.
On the contrary, because he is arguing above science, he has made the best validation for faith.
Then faith cannot be verified and is thus wishful thinking.
You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.
[/QUOTE]Faith does not need to be verified by anyone but the person with said faith. Science on the other hand need
You're not making a very good case for the validity of having faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?