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.
My point, to make as short and succint a response to the above comments as possible, is that microevolution has concrete evidence to support it. The idea that man came from apes does not.
Please support that last sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
So it cannot be termed a fact and thousands of scientists would agree. Macroevolution has many nay-sayers...actually, 'many' is an understatement.
What would you say the percentage of creationist scientists is? How about the percentage of creationist biologists (given that the theory of evolution is a biological theory)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
If believing in evolution of this type makes me an evolutionist than I am one. If believing in creation makes me a creationist I am one. I however, prefer not to label myself with either term. I am a Christian, a firm believer that the bible is the word of God, and a likewise firm believer that science supports the creation account of the bible.
Believing in "microevolution" as you call it doesn't make you anything. Both creationists and evolutionists agree microevolution occurs.
What makes you think macroevolution conflicts with the Bible?
I'm not sure why I need to support that sentence. I thought most people who were familiar with evolution understood the difference between the two. Microevolution can be proven simply by watching species adapt. Macro-not so much. Macroevolution is not evident in any way, shape, or form.
I have no idea how many creationist scientists there are. I don't have access to those numbers. But the ones I know personally are. One of my close friends is a rocket scientist in Huntsville and he claims that, though he might be in the minority in his field (believing God is our creator), more and more experts in his field are of the opinion that we just 'can't know for sure'.
My statements were not meant to start a debate, simply to clarify that the term 'evolution' need not be feared by Christians, since it can refer to many different things. Many people I run across seem to think the word is 'taboo' if you believe in God.
If we descended from apes, the scriptures would be false by representing man as the direct creation by God-created as superior to all other earthly creatures.
Did any of them disagree that macroevolution occurs and explains the diversity of life?
Yes, I believe so. I'll have to go back and research that. Macro-evolution no more explains the diversity of life than the belief that God created each species according to 'its kind'. After all, if He is the creator, he is omnipotent and not tied to such limits.
I'm not sure why I need to support that sentence. I thought most people who were familiar with evolution understood the difference between the two. Microevolution can be proven simply by watching species adapt. Macro-not so much. Macroevolution is not evident in any way, shape, or form.
If you can’t support that “macroevolution is not evident in any way, shape, or form” then why do you keep claiming it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
I have no idea how many creationist scientists there are. I don't have access to those numbers.
Then why did you make claims about how many creationist scientists there are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
But the ones I know personally are. One of my close friends is a rocket scientist in Huntsville and he claims that, though he might be in the minority in his field (believing God is our creator), more and more experts in his field are of the opinion that we just 'can't know for sure'.
Why are you telling me about his belief that God is our creator as support for your claim that he was a creationist? You do realize many evolutionists believe God is our creator, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
My statements were not meant to start a debate, simply to clarify that the term 'evolution' need not be feared by Christians, since it can refer to many different things. Many people I run across seem to think the word is 'taboo' if you believe in God.
Great, except that you still seem to think macroevolution is taboo if you believe in God. Most people who accept macroevolution also believe in God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
If we descended from apes, the scriptures would be false by representing man as the direct creation by God-created as superior to all other earthly creatures.
So you’re suggesting that man couldn’t have been created by God if he descended from apes? Why couldn’t God have created mankind using evolution?
As for mankind being superior to all other earthly creatures, does the Bible actually say that, or does it just say that mankind is to have dominion? Couldn’t man have evolved and still be granted dominion?
Yes, I believe so. I'll have to go back and research that.
I'll look forward to your answer then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenavada
Macro-evolution no more explains the diversity of life than the belief that God created each species according to 'its kind'. After all, if He is the creator, he is omnipotent and not tied to such limits
So you think just saying "goddidit" is equivalent to providing a testable scientific explanation based on evidence?
The fact of the matter is that, anyone who rejects the multitude of concrete evidence which provides ample evidence that evolution is the process by which species evolve over time is simply ignorant.
I didn't want this thread to turn into a evolutionist vs. creationist thread - as that subject has been hashed and rehashed on this board numerously. What I did want to address, however, is why Christians take literally certain aspects of biblical passages when convient, only later to ditch them when science thoroughly and entirely disproves its claims.
Often you'll hear Christians assert, "you can't take the bible literally", in reference to passages referring to Noah's Arc, Adam & Eve, and the "creation" of the Earth. But when the subject is homosexuality, for instance, suddenly this non-literal interpretation of the bible becomes very literal and gays are the most villified individuals amongst religious.
This is just one of many of the blatant inconsistencies, contrarierties, and idiocies that religion, specifically, Christianity has become.
The fact of the matter is that, anyone who rejects the multitude of concrete evidence which provides ample evidence that evolution is the process by which species evolve over time is simply ignorant.
I didn't want this thread to turn into a evolutionist vs. creationist thread - as that subject has been hashed and rehashed on this board numerously. What I did want to address, however, is why Christians take literally certain aspects of biblical passages when convient, only later to ditch them when science thoroughly and entirely disproves its claims.
Often you'll hear Christians assert, "you can't take the bible literally", in reference to passages referring to Noah's Arc, Adam & Eve, and the "creation" of the Earth. But when the subject is homosexuality, for instance, suddenly this non-literal interpretation of the bible becomes very literal and gays are the most villified individuals amongst religious.
I agree with the first paragraph completely.
The bible as a guidebook is very clear on certain matters. A science textbook it is not. Therefore it is up to each person to determine where the bible is meant to be taken literally and where it is not. Usually astudy of context is all that is needed.
Individual words, if taken literally in ANY conversation, can always be misunderstood. But supplied w/ context, the meaning becomes clear. I have never understood the creative 'days' of the bible to be 24 hour days and this has nothing to do w/ wheather science can disprove it or not. Because science is a study by imperfect men and subject to change.
In my study of the bible, I find no inconsistencies. which I why I can so confidently base my belief system on it.
No, not equivalent at all. As a person of faith, I do not feel the need to test the bible's creation account. And there lies the difference.
The difference between what? You said macroevolution was no better an explanation for the diversity of life than the belief that God created each species according to its kind. Why did you say that? What do you base it on? How does claiming that you accept untested Biblical accounts help your case?
And I'd still like to know what makes you so sure God couldn't have created man using evolution.
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.
Macroevolution is not evident in any way, shape, or form. 
