*words
XD
Just add a "_" in between, then it's one word 
Natural Selection
Sort:
I personally believe the earth is young because there is a genealogy from Adam to someone I can't remember atm, and I calculated the ages of the people and got around 6500 or so.
Yup
Same
Jun 14, 2019
0
#26
stephen_33 wrote:
The evidence we present that strongly indicates an ancient Earth is questioned only by people who come with an agenda to discredit anything that conflicts with their Biblical dogma. There're many people of strong faith who fully accept the conclusions of geologists concerning the age of the Earth & biologists concerning evolution.
People who're genuinely searching for answers & come with a sincere desire to better inform themselves on subjects like dating & evolution are worth the time spent to explain it to them. I'm afraid that dogmatists are not worth spending time on.
You need to decide which group you belong to.
Makes sense. Faith and science can co exist, some people just don't get it.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#27
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
I personally believe the earth is young because there is a genealogy from Adam to someone I can't remember atm, and I calculated the ages of the people and got around 6500 or so.
But can you make an argument for accepting that Adam & Eve ever existed as actual human beings? All manner of fictitious characters crop up in all manner of creation mythology, so what is there to substantiate the actual existence of those two figures?
This story is founded entirely on the belief that an omnipotent deity created the first human man from a quantity of 'dust' & the first woman from one of his (Adam's) ribs.
In any other parts of our lives this would be described as fanciful make-believe, so why should anyone believe the account in Genesis?
Jun 15, 2019
0
#28
sciencechimp2004 wrote:
I definitely believe faith and science coexist, because neither contradicts the other. No conclusions from science are proven facts; all are tentative. We have the same evidence, and we interpret it differently. Creationists interpret it based on what the Bible says, and evolutionists interpret it in the best way they can find that contradicts the Bible.
You don't want to hear this I'm sure but the Bible has no objective authority! Certain events of an historical kind may be substantiated by third-party sources, in which case we can say that there's the likelyhood of this or that happening.
But books such as Genesis are describing creation mythology of a kind that's typical in many ancient cultures. All manner of devoutly religious people & their churches abandoned a literal reading of them long ago.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#29
sciencechimp2004 wrote:
I definitely believe faith and science coexist, because neither contradicts the other. No conclusions from science are proven facts; all are tentative. We have the same evidence, and we interpret it differently. Creationists interpret it based on what the Bible says, and evolutionists interpret it in the best way they can find that contradicts the Bible.
In fact Biblical scripture is not any kind of hindrance or obstacle to the scientific understanding of how life has developed on Earth. Rather, scripture is an irrelevance.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#30
sciencechimp2004 wrote:
I definitely believe faith and science coexist, because neither contradicts the other. No conclusions from science are proven facts; all are tentative. We have the same evidence, and we interpret it differently. Creationists interpret it based on what the Bible says,
No. Based on very clear examples, you IGNORE it based on a naively literal interpretation of the bible.
and evolutionists interpret it in the best way they can find that contradicts the Bible.
The word "evolutionist" appears to refer to those who fail to ignore established science. It is only needed at all because of the existence of science deniers.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#31
Let's take just one example of that ignoring again.
Creationist - "the geologic column was made up by XXXX and doesn't exist".
Reality - examples of the geologic column are found in dozens of locations in every part of the world. They consist of a few miles thick of rock strata, which are dated using multiple independent types of radiometric dating to the entire range of times from the present back to precambrian (over half a billion years), in the right order.
Every element of the above is ignored and lied about by creationists.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#32
trump2020maga1 wrote:
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
People say there where mutations and it got its "upgrade" all at once
No, you have just made that up, haven't you?
Maybe I miss understood. I thought you guys say NS comes through mutations
No. Can a creationist ever post something about evolution without mixing up concepts?
Mutation INCREASES variation. Natural selection APPLIES TO variation. Natural selection is the fact (which should be absolutely undeniable, even to a science denier) that the frequency of gene variants is affected by any effect they have on the number of viable offspring.
There is a technical difficulty here which surely confuses anyone without theoretical knowledge: the number of viable offspring is a random variable, dependent on a multitude of complicated factors. What matters is the way this random variable depends on gene variants. Gene variants that statistically tend to lead to more viable offspring (more viable descendents in later generations as well) become more common.
That process is natural selection. Fitness driving frequency of genes.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#33
sciencechimp2004 wrote:
What's your explanation as to the fact that the Bible was written by about 40 different authors over the span of 2,000 years, but contains perfect consent of all its parts (no contradictions)? These many writers would most certainly disagree over that amount of time unless they were inspired by something supernatural.
In the context of Genesis, if all later generations were taught this creation story as fact, why should any writers subsequently contradict it? Wouldn't they accept it as fact?
A person's culture can impose strict controls over what they say & what dissenting views are acceptable, so why should we be surprised that core beliefs were not challenged?
Jun 15, 2019
0
#34
Genesis contains two somewhat inconsistent creation myths.
So much for the myth of consistency.
Jun 15, 2019
0
#35
I mean the bible does not have a high standard of consistency. It also has serious problems with consistency with well-established history in some places. One can conclude some stories got distorted or were made up.
But the only relevance of this here is that taking everything in the bible literally is not tenable. This means the misguided idea of disproving a science with it cannot be reliable.
stephen_33 wrote:
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
I personally believe the earth is young because there is a genealogy from Adam to someone I can't remember atm, and I calculated the ages of the people and got around 6500 or so.
But can you make an argument for accepting that Adam & Eve ever existed as actual human beings? All manner of fictitious characters crop up in all manner of creation mythology, so what is there to substantiate the actual existence of those two figures?
This story is founded entirely on the belief that an omnipotent deity created the first human man from a quantity of 'dust' & the first woman from one of his (Adam's) ribs.
In any other parts of our lives this would be described as fanciful make-believe, so why should anyone believe the account in Genesis?
I understand that you won't understand, but I believe it because it's in the Word of God. Let God be true, and every man a liar.
Elroch wrote:
I mean the bible does not have a high standard of consistency. It also has serious problems with consistency with well-established history in some places. One can conclude some stories got distorted or were made up.
But the only relevance of this here is that taking everything in the bible literally is not tenable. This means the misguided idea of disproving a science with it cannot be reliable.
I'm in no way disapproving science. I'm saying that maybe, just maybe, there is a chance that fallible men are wrong.
Not on every point of science, maybe they aren't as right as you think. I mean, men measily make mistakes with anything.
And there's no way it could have begun touching the Earth, so really, there's even less room than for 1.5 billion years
People say there where mutations and it got its "upgrade" all at once
No, you have just made that up, haven't you?
Maybe I miss understood. I thought you guys say NS comes through mutations
punctuated equilibrium
Yes! That's the word