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.
is evolution should to contradict theist beliefs ?
actually , i don't think that there are any contradictions between the evolution which be proofed scientifically and my beliefs as theist
what if God controls this evolution , what if God made this evolution ?
why athiest always raise the issue of evolution against theist , i'm a little confused about that actually
may be we can start our disussion with this question
what is the scientific defination for the evolution ?
The theism you wish should not contradict evolution if and only if we want to believe it that way: this is Right. But if we discover contradiction for the solution to the evidence we are in heap of mess trying to justify the bad meaning of probability: i.e. the meaning of probability the wish fits the promise, or that we put trust in God justly: He knew what evolves vis a vis appropriately grounded probability. That one is Left.
is evolution should to contradict theist beliefs ?
actually , i don't think that there are any contradictions between the evolution which be proofed scientifically and my beliefs as theist
what if God controls this evolution , what if God made this evolution ?
why athiest always raise the issue of evolution against theist , i'm a little confused about that actually
may be we can start our disussion with this question
what is the scientific defination for the evolution ?
I don't get it. What if a stranger arrives in some town, and is approached by some one for money for his lost probability of succeeding the demands of the local bank? The stranger is sitting abidingly having a cup of coffee at the coffee shop and he just happens to be thinking about the big research of animals up the street for a possible new product or understanding of what animals mean to civilization.
Is the right reply to the essentially beggar that he's busy with the concern of animal rights at the momment and can't talk to the stranger now?
Other than the whole Genesis account of creation, God's working through something cruel and inhumane like evolution, and the ultimate question of God's sovereignty....
kdbrich , actually i'm talking about evolution from scientific point of view , as for example this universe is in evolution while we speaking now and it was proofed scientifically that universe is in expansion
your childeren are in evolution process , after long time thier hairs will be changed to white hair or may be they will become bald
actually i made this post for pure understanding about evolution from athiest point of view referenced to scientific facts discovered concerning this concept
as long as athiests are depending on facts alone , so what is this concept means to them with reference of facts ?
I happen to agree with you. I really don't think that evolution and faith should be at such odds with one another. In the 1800's when Charles Darwin released his book On the Origins of Species, it was actually some time before the churches in America caught on to what he was getting at. It was the backwoods, redneck churches with little to no understanding of what Charles Darwin was talking about that actually got the idea initially ingrained in people's minds that there was some sort of controversy about it. In fact, many of these churches were the same churches that used their copious "understanding" of the Bible to validate the use of slavery.
Almost from the beginning, the straw man arguments started. "I'm not descended from a monkey," "There's nothing in the fossil record," etc... The truth of the matter is that many of these same arguments commonly used today have been refuted in court case after court case where evolution has been the victor every single time.
However, due to the large publicity of certain trials such as the Scopes trial in Tennessee and even as recently as the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School Board in which the anti-evolutionists were sent home with their tails between their legs and on the verge of being charged for perjury in front of a Supreme Court Justice (some Christian values, huh?) there have been on-again; off-again flare ups that make the issue look like a scientifically controversial one. In fact, the arguments posed by those from the Institute for Creation Research and the Intelligent Design Institute are about as primitive, stupid, and bogus as anything I've ever seen.
It doesn't surprise me that what was borne out of backwoods, redneck churches in the maladjusted pre and post-slavery eras has continued on to this day to sound like nothing more than backwoods, redneck logic and science. Unfortunately, these "institutes" have made a relative fortune off of those who do not understand science by telling them their faith is threatened by believing in evolution. In fact, my point of view is that if your faith is threatened, or you feel like less of a believer because of evolution, then I wonder how strong your faith actually is? It actually seems to me like those who are so ardently against it are either stupid, easily tricked, or of the same mentality as a few rednecks dated to about 130-150 years ago.
The God of the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and all the rest is a weak and pathetic God used for those whose faith is limited to being force-fed garbage and propaganda. It's a shame that we live in a day and age where people's belief in a magical dust twister creating man and a spare rib of the former creating woman is threatened by a theory supported by mountains and mountains of evidence from all avenues, aspects, and areas of science.
As has been carefully defined by evolutionary biologists, evolution is simply the process by which different species have arisen over time, in response to available niches. PS: do you understand niches; just curious.
But rigid fundamentalist Christians persist in combining evolution with the initial origins of life. For that, even if we might better define the physical origins of our universe in the future , that in no way prevents there being a possible "supreme being".
But... many evolutionists do not believe in such a being for some logical reasons. Most, if not all, of the literal interpretations of the bible have been absolutely disproved by the relentless logic of the scientific method. If we see those biblical stories to be untrue, or to be simply fables useful as a guide for ethical living, why then should we still honor the remaining concept of a Creator, who is also defined by that same book?
My "faith" is in the provenreliability of the science toolbox, which has placed the Mars Rover Lander into orbit around Mars within less than one second of accuracy...
Why is it suddenly so much in error when it investigates the evidence for evolution and an old old earth? That selective acceptance is illogical, while evolution is just common sense now, especially when we know the exact mechanisms by which it works, and can demonstrate them in the lab.
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.
You're being politcally incorrect?
Elwill, I as of yet cannot trust.
Some things are just plain obvious!
(broken link)