Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what amazes me is snow ball is trying to prove evolution wrong and gives no counter theory. He just keeps saying, essentially, "that's wrong", that's wrong, "and that's wrong too". Sounds like another group I know.
Snowball. How did your god assemble man? believing and non believing Evolutionist say "man seemed to be assembled from the dust by starting with the dust and moving its way to man in a series of steps." That statement doesn't mean "no god at all" or "no god needed."
In fact believers are within their right to say: "God seemed to be assembled man from the dust by starting with the dust and moving God's way to man in a series of logical steps." This is a valid statement in that it matches observations.
What is your counter theory? How god your god assemble man? How does your bible say he did it?
That really is the way it works. The objections put by Melizza (and they were darn good as evolution -skepticism goes) are more pointing up this bit of debate about the dating of fossils or the relationship of this fossil archetype with another (and I suppose the specific skull -feature that relates each of those skulls to the others can just be dissmissd) and nobody would think of dismissing sub atomic theory because of debate about particular particles or consider the history of Pharonic Egypt totally fantasy because of some disagreement about the dating of a particular dynasty.
But this is apparently valid with evolution- skepticism and for one reason only - because it undermines Genesis. And we hear about trusting or relying on the Bible. But it has nothing we could call sound evidence. At the worst (and Snowball is one of the worst ) we get the dismissal of an entire science and all its evidence as fantasy, (and with any reasons either minor quibbles about the dates or clades or some absurd objection that it doesn't explain where we get our morals or explain what the meaning of life is, which is utterly irrelevant) and then conversely the holding up of what is pretty clearly fantasy as reliable fact. With nothing to support it. Nothing at all. Just faith.
It must surely be pot -kettle projection that we get accusations of "Faith" is mere shedloads of evidence which is of course totally debunked by pointing up some discussion about dates or the place in the family tree ,
Here are the biggest misconceptions that I have read in this thread from those who "think" they understand what Evolution is but clearly they don't. All they have are misconceptions.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION:Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION:The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is not random!
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a process that perfects organisms.
CORRECTION: First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
Read up about deleterious genes if you need more evidence that Natural Selection is not about producing perfect organisms. Sickle Cell Disease is a "perfect" example of this.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a random process.
CORRECTION: A population of organisms undergoes random mutation and non-random selection. The result is non-random evolutionary change.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural selection gives organisms what they need.
CORRECTION: Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species or an individual "needs." Natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population, and this genetic variation is generated by random mutation — a process that is unaffected by what organisms in the population need. If a population happens to have genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a challenge better than others or reproduce more than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may survive anyway (but not evolve via natural selection) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it "needs" by natural selection.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
CORRECTION:Natural selection is not all-powerful. There are many reasons that natural selection cannot produce "perfectly-engineered" traits. For example, living things are made up of traits resulting from a complicated set of trade-offs — changing one feature for the better may mean changing another for the worse (e.g., a bird with the "perfect" tail plumage to attract mates maybe be particularly vulnerable to predators because of its long tail). And of course, because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels.
MISCONCEPTION:Humans are not currently evolving.
CORRECTION: Humans are now able to modify our environments with technology. We have invented medical treatments, agricultural practices, and economic structures that significantly alter the challenges to reproduction and survival faced by modern humans. So, for example, because we can now treat diabetes with insulin, the gene versions that contribute to juvenile diabetes are no longer strongly selected against in developed countries. Some have argued that such technological advances mean that we've opted out of the evolutionary game and set ourselves beyond the reach of natural selection — essentially, that we've stopped evolving. However, this is not the case. Humans still face challenges to survival and reproduction, just not the same ones that we did 20,000 years ago. The direction, but not the fact of our evolution has changed. For example, modern humans living in densely populated areas face greater risks of epidemic diseases than did our hunter-gatherer ancestors (who did not come into close contact with so many people on a daily basis) — and this situation favors the spread of gene versions that protect against these diseases. Scientists have uncovered many such cases of recent human evolution.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.
CORRECTION:This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don't know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world. However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity.
MISCONCEPTION:Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
CORRECTION:While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record.
Last edited by Matadora; 06-03-2015 at 12:28 PM..
Reason: Changed Font
What is your counter theory? How god your god assemble man? How does your bible say he did it?
Talk about gaps in their God Creation Hypothesis/Creation Myth
They don't like evolution due to the small gaps that are understandable but yet they will defend the God Creation Hypothesis/Creation Myth which is full of gaping holes and has no evidence at all.
Talk about gaps in their God Creation Hypothesis/Creation Myth
They don't like evolution due to the small gaps that are understandable but yet they will defend the God Creation Hypothesis/Creation Myth which is full of gaping holes and has no evidence at all.
Where's the logic in this?
There is no logic in what passes for fundamentalist thinking.
Here are the biggest misconceptions that I have read in this thread from those who "think" they understand what Evolution is but clearly they don't. All they have are misconceptions.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION:Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION:The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is not random!
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a process that perfects organisms.
CORRECTION: First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
Read up about deleterious genes if you need more evidence that Natural Selection is not about producing perfect organisms. Sickle Cell Disease is a "perfect" example of this.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a random process.
CORRECTION: A population of organisms undergoes random mutation and non-random selection. The result is non-random evolutionary change.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural selection gives organisms what they need.
CORRECTION: Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species or an individual "needs." Natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population, and this genetic variation is generated by random mutation — a process that is unaffected by what organisms in the population need. If a population happens to have genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a challenge better than others or reproduce more than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may survive anyway (but not evolve via natural selection) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it "needs" by natural selection.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
CORRECTION:Natural selection is not all-powerful. There are many reasons that natural selection cannot produce "perfectly-engineered" traits. For example, living things are made up of traits resulting from a complicated set of trade-offs — changing one feature for the better may mean changing another for the worse (e.g., a bird with the "perfect" tail plumage to attract mates maybe be particularly vulnerable to predators because of its long tail). And of course, because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels.
MISCONCEPTION:Humans are not currently evolving.
CORRECTION: Humans are now able to modify our environments with technology. We have invented medical treatments, agricultural practices, and economic structures that significantly alter the challenges to reproduction and survival faced by modern humans. So, for example, because we can now treat diabetes with insulin, the gene versions that contribute to juvenile diabetes are no longer strongly selected against in developed countries. Some have argued that such technological advances mean that we've opted out of the evolutionary game and set ourselves beyond the reach of natural selection — essentially, that we've stopped evolving. However, this is not the case. Humans still face challenges to survival and reproduction, just not the same ones that we did 20,000 years ago. The direction, but not the fact of our evolution has changed. For example, modern humans living in densely populated areas face greater risks of epidemic diseases than did our hunter-gatherer ancestors (who did not come into close contact with so many people on a daily basis) — and this situation favors the spread of gene versions that protect against these diseases. Scientists have uncovered many such cases of recent human evolution.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.
CORRECTION:This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don't know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world. However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity.
MISCONCEPTION:Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
CORRECTION:While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record.
Thank you. That sets out common misunderstandings about evolution -theory, by those, shall we say, who are willing to give it a fair whack but find a lot of these supposed objections - the thing is, even if evolution theory did collapse (which is no more going to happen than we go back to a flat earth and geocentric system) that still wouldn't make the evidence fit the Genesis account.
That post of course won't address those who insist that evolution -theory says dogs give birth to cats, and if evolutionists say that isn't what evolution says - they are lying. The truth is (they say - I had this in the last evolution -thread ) that evolution does claim that dogs give birth to cats but they say it doesn't say that because they know it doesn't happen that way and they don't want to admit the theory doesn't work. So they have a global cabal of atheist scientists making sure no Creationist gets to publish the truth. I swear, this is what I had presented.
Mind, that was probably not typical and I hope your post will get fair consideration.
Thank you. That sets out common misunderstandings about evolution -theory, by those, shall we say, who are willing to give it a fair whack but find a lot of these supposed objections - the thing is, even if evolution theory did collapse (which is no more going to happen than we go back to a flat earth and geocentric system) that still wouldn't make the evidence fit the Genesis account.
You're very welcome
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory is not in crisis; scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life's diversity because of the multiple lines of evidence supporting it, its broad power to explain biological phenomena, and its ability to make accurate predictions in a wide variety of situations. Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do debate many details of how evolution occurred and occurs in different circumstances. Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs.Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.
The only crisis going on right now (in the eyes of fundamental religion teachers and followers) is that fundamental views are dying out at a rapid pace and people are walking away from fundamental religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
That post of course won't address those who insist that evolution -theory says dogs give birth to cats, and if evolutionists say that isn't what evolution says - they are lying.
To that I will say...show me the evidence where one single evolutionary scientist claims that dogs gave birth to cats.
Here are the biggest misconceptions that I have read in this thread from those who "think" they understand what Evolution is but clearly they don't. All they have are misconceptions.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION:Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION:The genetic variation that occurs in a population because of mutation is random — but selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way: genetic variants that aid survival and reproduction are much more likely to become common than variants that don't. Natural selection is not random!
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a process that perfects organisms.
CORRECTION: First, natural selection is not all-powerful; it does not produce perfection. If your genes are "good enough," you'll get some offspring into the next generation — you don't have to be perfect. This is apparent in the populations around us: people may have genes for genetic diseases, plants may not have the genes to survive a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. No population or organism is perfectly adapted.
Second, it's more accurate to think of natural selection as a process rather than as a guiding hand. Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity — it is mindless and mechanistic. It has no goals; it's not striving to produce "progress" or a balanced ecosystem.
This is why "need," "try," and "want" are not very accurate words when it comes to explaining evolution. The population or individual does not "want" or "try" to evolve, and natural selection cannot try to supply what an organism "needs." Natural selection just selects among whatever variations exist in the population. The result is evolution.
Read up about deleterious genes if you need more evidence that Natural Selection is not about producing perfect organisms. Sickle Cell Disease is a "perfect" example of this.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural Selection is a random process.
CORRECTION: A population of organisms undergoes random mutation and non-random selection. The result is non-random evolutionary change.
MISCONCEPTION:Natural selection gives organisms what they need.
CORRECTION: Natural selection has no intentions or senses; it cannot sense what a species or an individual "needs." Natural selection acts on the genetic variation in a population, and this genetic variation is generated by random mutation — a process that is unaffected by what organisms in the population need. If a population happens to have genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a challenge better than others or reproduce more than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and the population will evolve. If that genetic variation is not in the population, the population may survive anyway (but not evolve via natural selection) or it may die out. But it will not be granted what it "needs" by natural selection.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
CORRECTION:Natural selection is not all-powerful. There are many reasons that natural selection cannot produce "perfectly-engineered" traits. For example, living things are made up of traits resulting from a complicated set of trade-offs — changing one feature for the better may mean changing another for the worse (e.g., a bird with the "perfect" tail plumage to attract mates maybe be particularly vulnerable to predators because of its long tail). And of course, because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels.
MISCONCEPTION:Humans are not currently evolving.
CORRECTION: Humans are now able to modify our environments with technology. We have invented medical treatments, agricultural practices, and economic structures that significantly alter the challenges to reproduction and survival faced by modern humans. So, for example, because we can now treat diabetes with insulin, the gene versions that contribute to juvenile diabetes are no longer strongly selected against in developed countries. Some have argued that such technological advances mean that we've opted out of the evolutionary game and set ourselves beyond the reach of natural selection — essentially, that we've stopped evolving. However, this is not the case. Humans still face challenges to survival and reproduction, just not the same ones that we did 20,000 years ago. The direction, but not the fact of our evolution has changed. For example, modern humans living in densely populated areas face greater risks of epidemic diseases than did our hunter-gatherer ancestors (who did not come into close contact with so many people on a daily basis) — and this situation favors the spread of gene versions that protect against these diseases. Scientists have uncovered many such cases of recent human evolution.
MISCONCEPTION:Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us.
CORRECTION:This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don't know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world. However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life's diversity.
MISCONCEPTION:Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution.
CORRECTION:While it's true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we'd expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don't have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we've only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record.
Excellent summary, Matadora. I once thought that this kind of objective and clear presentation of our current scientific understanding of reality would have some power against the irrational fundamentalism and unreasoning credulity that seems to hold so many captive. This forum has disabused me of the power of reason and intellect in these matters . . . and I DO include many of the ahteists who seem equally captive in an unwarranted dismissivemess of matters theological.
Excellent summary, Matadora. I once thought that this kind of objective and clear presentation of our current scientific understanding of reality would have some power against the irrational fundamentalism and unreasoning credulity that seems to hold so many captive. This forum has disabused me of the power of reason and intellect in these matters . . . and I DO include many of the ahteists who seem equally captive in an unwarranted dismissivemess of matters theological.
Thank you
"Credulity is a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge. Credulity is not simply a belief in something that may be false. The subject of the belief may even be correct, but a credulous person will believe it without good evidence".
Excellent summary, Matadora. I once thought that this kind of objective and clear presentation of our current scientific understanding of reality would have some power against the irrational fundamentalism and unreasoning credulity that seems to hold so many captive. This forum has disabused me of the power of reason and intellect in these matters . . . and I DO include many of the ahteists who seem equally captive in an unwarranted dismissivemess of matters theological.
I agree. we have atheist that ignore facts to fill emotional needs and revenge. And they place those emotions on and imaginary beast religion. When I stood away from the group and closed my eyes. we sounded exactly the same as "them". That's when I understood what Jesus meant. I don't believe he rose as taught. But even any 1/2 whit bio guy can see how memes and proteins can make the story work.
More importantly with regard to gaps in evolutionary theory, those gaps don't leave "evidence" based people with anything on which to accept the Genesis view by creationists. Genesis itself doesn't provide anything on which even people of faith are to accept it as fact. And many of the early church fathers saw Genesis as allegorical. Origen and Augustine both believed in instantaneous creation, no six days and nights. For them, it made no sense that an all powerful God would need six days to do anything. He spoke once and it all came into being. In that sense, fundamentalists would hold them to be totally incorrect, because their point is not about how powerful God is, but rather how powerful the Bible is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) we get the dismissal of an entire science and all its evidence as fantasy, (and with any reasons either minor quibbles about the dates or clades or some absurd objection that it doesn't explain where we get our morals or explain what the meaning of life is, which is utterly irrelevant) and then conversely the holding up of what is pretty clearly fantasy as reliable fact. With nothing to support it. Nothing at all. Just faith.
Misconceptions about Evolution
