Bible Study
See other Bible Study Articles
Title: Evolution or Creation Science?
Source:
Orthodox Church in America
URL Source: https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-law ... /evolution-or-creation-science
Published: May 30, 2012
Author: Fr. Lawrence Farley
Post Date: 2018-02-14 09:59:32 by A Pole
Keywords: orthodox, creation, evolution
Views: 24593
Comments: 211
In my years as a priest and of sharing the Gospel, I have heard many reasons offered for not becoming a Christian: scandals associated with clergy, the wealth of the Church, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. etc. I thought I had more or less heard it all, and so was unprepared for a reason one young man offered to justify his rejection of Orthodoxy—namely, that dinosaurs were not in the Bible. I blinked a few times, and was left temporarily speechless (something of a rarity with me, to which those who know me well can attest). His idea was that since dinosaurs obviously existed (their skeletons adorn our museums), then if the Bible was God’s Word, he should be able to read about dinosaurs in the Bible. Since he could not find them there (I refrained from mentioning certain fundamentalist interpretations of Leviathan and Behemoth in the Book of Job), then obviously the Bible could not be God’s Word and he could not remain Orthodox. He was referring of course to the old supposed conflict between Science and Religion, and in this arm-wrestling match, it was clear to him that Science had won. No Biblical dinosaurs, no more church-going. So, what’s the deal about dinosaurs? Why aren’t they in the creation stories in Genesis? Apart from the absurdity of supposing they’re not there because they aren’t mentioned by name (the duck-billed platypus isn’t mentioned by name either), it’s a valid question, and one that leads us headlong into the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis. Interpretation of the creation stories too often degenerates into an argument between the theory of evolution vs. what is sometimes called “creation science”. By “evolution” the average non-scientific person means the notion that Man descended from the apes, or from a common ancestor of apes and men. The name “Darwin” is usually thrown about, regardless of how the ideas in his On the Origin of Species have fared in the scientific community since Darwin wrote it in 1859, and most people’s knowledge of evolution is confined to looking at the famous evolutionary chart in National Geographic, showing how smaller hominids kept walking until they became human beings like us. By “creation science” is meant the view that the Genesis stories are to be taken as scientifically or historically factual, so that the earth (often considered to be comparatively young) was created by God in six twenty-four hour days. Since the time of the “Scopes monkey trial”, the argument between “evolutionists” and “creationists” has been going strong, and is often fought in the nation’s courts and departments of education. Arm-wrestling indeed. Happily for people with weak arms like myself, the Church does not call us to take part in this arm-wrestling match. The creation stories in Genesis were not written, I suggest, to give us a blow-by-blow account of how we got here. Rather, they were written to reveal something fundamental about the God of Israel and the privileged status of the people who worshipped Him. We assume today that the ancients wanted to know how we got here, and how we were created. In fact, they were mostly uninterested in such cosmic questions, and the creation myths that existed in the ancient near east spoke to other issues. Most people back then, if they thought of the question of cosmic origins at all, assumed that the world had always existed, and the various gods they worshipped were simply part of that eternal backdrop. That is where the creation stories were truly revolutionary. Their main point was not merely that God created the world; it was that the tribal God of the Jewish people was sovereign over the world. We take monotheism for granted, and spell “god” with a capital “G”. For us, God is singular and unique by definition. It was otherwise in the ancient near east. That age was populated by different gods, each with his or her own power, agenda, and career. And this is the point: in the Genesis stories, none of these gods are there. In the opening verses we read, “In the beginning God (Hebrew Elohim, a Jewish name for their God) created the heavens and the earth” and “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made earth and heaven.” The creating deity is called “Elohim” and “Yahweh”—the names for the Jewish God. Other rival deities are simply not there. It is as if they do not exist. They had been dethroned and demoted by their omission from the story. The opening verse of Genesis is a salvo fired into the world of polytheism, a ringing declaration that their gods were nobodies. We keep reading and discover that this Jewish God made everything that existed by His simple word of command. He simply said, “Light—exist!” (two words in the original Hebrew), and light sprang into existence. In the creation myths of the pagan cultures of that time, the gods created by lots of huffing and puffing (in an Old Babylonian myth, the god Enlil uses a hoe), but not so the God of the Jews. He is above all that. For Him, a simple sovereign word suffices. In fact, in the first chapter of Genesis, all the cosmos was brought into being by Him uttering ten simple commands (yep, it does foreshadow the Ten Commandments, given later). And Man is portrayed in these stories as the sum and crown of creation, giving the human person a dignity never before known. Man is said to have been made “in the image of God”—a revolutionary statement, since in those days, only kings were thought to be in the divine image. Despite this, Genesis invests the common man with this royal dignity. And even more: it says that woman shares this image and rule with him. In the ancient near east, women were chattel; in Genesis, she is a co-ruler of creation with the man. The stories of Genesis cannot be read apart from their original cultural context, and when we read them as they were meant to be read, we see that the creation story was a gauntlet thrown down before the prevailing culture of its time. The creation stories affirmed that the Jewish God, the tribal deity of a small and internationally unimportant people, alone made the whole cosmos. That meant that He was able to protect His People. It meant that, properly speaking, all the pagan nations should abandon their old gods and worship Him. These stories affirm that the Jewish God is powerful enough to have created everything by a few simple orders. They affirm that Man is not the mere tool and slave of the gods, whose job it is to feed the deities and care for their temples. Rather, Man is a co-ruler with God, His own image and viceroy on earth. And Woman is not a thing to be sold, inferior to Man. Rather, she shares Man’s calling and dignity. These are the real lessons of Genesis. It has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution. Its true lessons are located elsewhere. So what about dinosaurs? I happily leave them in the museums, to the makers of movies (I love “Jurassic Park”), and the writers of National Geographic. The creation stories of Genesis give me lots to ponder and to live up to without multiplying mysteries. As Mark Twain once said, “It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me; it’s the parts I do understand.” 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#1)
Are you a paleontologist?
Do you fuck monkeys?
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians. Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here, but that God is real regardless of the method. That is certainly my own sentiment. For that reason, I'm a bit surprised to see you post it Stone. It in no way makes any case for Creationism over Evolution.
Resorting to vulgarities does undermine your case pretty severely, Stone. While they are mere phonetics and words that we have been indoctrinated to take as offensive as part of our culture, they are nonetheless offensive to many, and I know of no self-proclaiming Christians who do that. And that is completely aside from the point of it being an unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
It doesn't matter to you because you're not a Christian. It does matter though. Very much. Also if Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us. If it doesn't matter why do biased scientists try to prove something that happened in the past by making stuff up with their fervid imagination? Have a good day sir. I might add that I respect you as a person and a poster. You handle yourself well and are always courteous and kind. Unlike me sometimes.
ATheists Through savanT spiriTualiTy can validaTe Their deformiTy ObliviaTe realiTy Over Trivia nonsense STill convincing Themselves Of inTellecTual superioriTy The flaT head earthers Ignoring The obvious Love ps MounTains of Turd hills If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
It is not funfair. If they think that is where we came from they should still have sex with them since we are the same family line. It s crude but it makes the point.
To be exact I do not "believe in evolution", I consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it.
That troglodites are still among us?
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?" That means there are circumstances under which evolution could not possibly be true. That is the current definition of what is science. Evolution is a religion.
This is a complex question. First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory. Putting this aside, there are several evolution theories like Lamarck, Darwin, popular Neodarwinism as taught in American high schools and Jurassic Park movies, and they are still evolving [pun intended] rapidly. Certainly for many it is , especially for those who do not know biology very well.
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory. I can't say I do either, but that is modern science. You don't need to know evolution to be a biologist. In fact, creationists believe in everything an evolutionist believes except that a sparrow could evolve into a lizard.
Human beings are soulless zombies Homo sapiens Means wisdom Soul Awareness of life ExisTence of God CreaTion Love Ps God will sorT ouT The Trash If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Then you don't understand modern scientific principles. Falsification is an absolute requirement in science. We must be able to test our theories and we must discard those whose experimental results cannot be replicated. Without this, there is no science worthy of the name.
That sounds more like verification than falsification. Verification relies on empirical evidence that shows an assumption to be true. It's not to be discounted: it was solely relied on for centuries. Falsification starts with the assumption itself. What would show this assumption not to be true? If there is no condition that could occur that would show an assumption not to be true, then it is not science. There is no condition in which evolution could be shown not to be true. Yeah, I've heard some arguments such as fossil layers, but when it is shown there are numerous instances where the layers don't match evolutionary expectations, it is rationalized away.
Falsification requires, among other things, a theory unambiguous enough to be tested and then replicated by other qualified peers. Theories are a dime a dozen. Positing a theory and finding a way to determine if it is true or not is what makes it science. Falsifiability applies in other ways. It also means there is no such thing as a final answer in science. No theory or scientific principle is ever so truly established that a new theory with adequate demonstrative proof and replication cannot overturn it. This has happened many many times in the history of science. It is how we progress. It's what the greatest Nobel Prizes were awarded for. It is in some ways a philosophy-of-science kind of question. So I think the terms and the debate just rubs some people the wrong way. I am myself pretty suspicious of any philosophic propositions. But I do think Popper was right. Dead right. 1,000% right. But I could be wrong. : ) It does sound to me like you agree with Popper. You're mostly just quibbling over the terms of the discussion. IMO.
Then you don't understand modern scientific principles. I know his theory well. I just think it is shallow and flaky. Burn me on the stake! And I am not the only one, if it is an argument for you. Here is an initial fragment of sample text: Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism, by Nicholas Dykes [...] Critical Rationalism has also been referred to, by Popper himself and by others, as the theory of falsification, or falsificationism, and as fallibilism. It would be tempting, for the sake of brevity, to employ 'fallibilism' throughout, but the term is also associated with the founder of Pragmatism, C.S. Peirce, who actually coined it long before Popper began his career.4 This paper therefore follows the lead of later Popperians such as W.W. Bartley III5 and David Miller6 in employing Critical Rationalism, which in any case better encompasses Popper's thought. The Critical Rationalism of Karl Popper [henceforth CR] begins by rejecting induction as a scientific method. The actual method of science, Popper maintained, is a continuous process of conjecture and refutation: "The way in which knowledge progresses, and especially our scientific knowledge, is by unjustified (and unjustifiable) anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures. These conjectures are controlled by criticism; that is, by attempted refutations, which include severely critical tests. They may survive these tests; but they can never be positively justified: they can be established neither as certainly true nor even as 'probable'..." [C&R vii]. [...] Popper built his philosophy on foundations borrowed from Hume and Kant. His first premise was wholehearted acceptance of Hume's attack on induction. The second, to be addressed in the next section, was agreement with Kant's view that it is our ideas which give form to reality, not reality which gives form to our ideas. Hume, whom Popper called "one of the most rational minds of all ages" [PKP2 1019], is renowned for elaborating the 'problem of induction' - a supposedly logical proof that generalisations from observation are invalid. Most later philosophers have accepted Hume's arguments, and libraries have been filled with attempts to solve his 'problem.' Popper thought he had the answer. "I believed I had solved the problem of induction by the simple discovery that induction by repetition did not exist" [UNQ 52; c.f. OKN 1ff & PKP2 1115]. What really took place, according to Popper, was CR, knowledge advancing by means of conjecture and refutation: "... in my view here is no such thing as induction" [LSCD 40]; "what characterises the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested" [LSCD 42]. Hume, said Popper, had shown that: "there is no argument of reason which permits an inference from one case to another... and I completely agree" [OKN 96]. Elsewhere he referred to induction as "a myth" which had been "exploded" by Hume [UNQ 80]. He further asserted that "There is no rule of inductive inference - inference leading to theories or universal laws - ever proposed which can be taken seriously even for a minute" [UNQ 146-7; see also RASC 31]. The Problem with 'The Problem' Popper's solution was certainly correct in one respect. The problem of induction would indeed vanish if there were no such thing as induction. However, the issue would be resolved much more positively were it to turn out that Hume had been wrong, and that there never had been any problem with induction in the first place. And, in point of fact, this is the case. Despite his great skill as a thinker and writer, Hume missed the point. Induction does not depend for its validity on observation, but on the Law of Identity. Hume stated, in essence, that since all ideas are derived from experience we cannot have any valid ideas about future events - which have yet to be experienced. He therefore denied that the past can give us any information about the future. He further denied that there is any necessary connection between cause and effect. We experience only repeated instances, we cannot experience any "power" that actually causes events to take place. Events are entirely "loose and separate.... conjoined but never connected."8 According to Hume, then, one has no guarantee that the hawthorn in an English hedge will not bear grapes next autumn, nor that the thistles in a nearby field won't produce figs. The expectation that the thorn will produce red berries, and the thistles purple flowers, is merely the result of "regular conjunction" which induces an "inference of the understanding."9 In Hume's view, there is no such thing as objective identity, there is only subjective "custom" or "habit." However, Hume also wrote: "When any opinion leads to absurdities, it is certainly false"10 and the idea that one might gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles is surely absurd enough to qualify. And false is what Hume's opinions most certainly are. Left standing, they lead to what he himself called "the flattest of all contradictions, viz. that it is possible for the same thing both to be and not to be."11 The crux of the case against Hume was stated in 1916 by H.W.B. Joseph in An Introduction to Logic: "A thing, to be at all, must be something, and can only be what it is. To assert a causal connexion between a and x implies that a acts as it does because it is what it is; because, in fact, it is a. So long therefore as it is a, it must act thus; and to assert that it may act otherwise on a subsequent occasion is to assert that what is a is something else than the a which it is declared to be."12 Hume's whole argument - persuasive though it may be - is, to borrow Joseph's words, "in flat conflict with the Law of Identity."13 Existence implies identity. It is not possible to exist without being something, and a thing can only be what it is: A is A. Any actions of that thing form part of its identity: "the way in which it acts must be regarded as a partial expression of what it is."14 Thus to deny any connection between a thing, its actions, and their consequences, is to assert that the thing is not what it is; it is to defy the Law of Identity. It is not necessary to prolong this discussion. Entities exist. They possess identity. By careful observation - free from preconception - we are able to discover the identities of the entities we observe. Thereafter, we are fully entitled to assume that like entities will cause like events, the form of inference we call induction. And, because it rests on the axiom of the Law of Identity, correct induction - free from contradiction - is a valid route to knowledge. The first premise of CR is therefore false. [...]
I can't say I do either, but that is modern science. Funny thing, one could say "but that is modern science" in every century. And each time it would be very compelling argument for the serious people. Still, "putting this aside, there are several evolution theories like Lamarck, Darwin, popular Neodarwinism as taught in American high schools and Jurassic Park movies, and they are still evolving [pun intended] rapidly." For example to falsify popular Neodarwinism, would be enough to prove that acquired traits can be inherited, or that mutations are not random, etc ... Is it what you asked for?
I'm not sure what that has to do with evolution. Creationists believe in mutations (just that almost all of them are harmful and destructive) and inherited traits. They also believe believe in speciation and natural selection. They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird. In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
I did not mentioned "inherited traits", I wrote about "acquired traits to be inherited". Do you see the difference? They have right to believe almost in everything they want. You mean, there is no proof that such change took place. True, but the absence of proof is not a proof that it did not take place or that it could not take place. Besides the main issue is whether life was created in exactly six days or whether evolution could play role in Creation. I happen to be Creationist who believes that God could create in the ways it pleases Him. Could be literal simple six days, could be through a complex and long process. I tend to think that the second way was used, but I do not see it as critical faith issue. More important is not be arrogant and presumptuous. ======== "Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone— while the morning stars sang together and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
Popper did go too far in his philosophizing about the nature of knowledge and how he believed it progressed, the entire thought process and other philosophical implications of theorizing. However, he was dead right about how he applied the principles of falsification to hard science. And that is why he is still a titan as a philosopher of science. We do not, after all, dismiss all of Newton's ideas about physics because he wasted much of his life pursuing alchemy.
That is true. They do admit generally to micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. Their critics will say that the only real difference is the time span and how many favorable mutations will evolve in sequence. Then you get to things like this new spread of crayfish to the lakes of Europe from a single female specimen in Germany. This species has suddenly evolved in the last 25 years to no longer require males to reproduce. The females can produce female clones of themselves. Europe is pretty unhappy about them and they are posing a menace to ecosystems around the world. The evolutionists aren't much more comfortable with this than the creationists are. It's hard to explain for everybody. Independent.co.uk: All-female mutant crayfish that clone themselves are taking over rivers and lakes around world
Not only do do creationists admit it, they embrace it far more robustly than evolutionists do. It explains many worldwide species of animals that came to be after the flood.
You might overstate it a little here. I think it is major mutation that makes them all uncomfortable. The implications are unsettling, even for the human race. But not unexpected by Darwin. So many people can spend years sitting in a science class and never understand that devolution of a species is just as common or, likely, far more common than the evolution of a species. This is why so many species have disappeared from the fossil record. We have their skeletons or fossils but they are long gone and not coming back. And only rarely is this our fault. Real science is a little scary when you understand the implications.
Sorry, for some reason I thought A K A Stone posted this article, which he obviously didn't. Don't know why or how I got confused on that.
Those two paintings could be much improved if someone would add a few dinosaurs to them.
Not being a great scientist nor philosopher. I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? Unless we count his doctrine of Open Society.
Obviously, you hate Popper. Fine.
Ridiculous. I just see his ideas as lame and ideological. Same way I could say that you are in a passionate love with Popper, and it is blinding you. But I am not letting you get of the hook, so easily. My question still stands: "I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? "
You do understand that Popper was not a scientist? He was primarily a philosopher of science, an intellectual. He also did work in social philosophy and other areas of philosophy, none of which interest me at all but which seems to be most of what you know about him. He is routinely considered the greatest philosopher of science in the twentieth century and, to some people, of all time. Questions like "how do we know what we know?", "how can we prove to others what we think we know?", "what is the proper metric for formulating and testing a hypothesis?", these are typical of the matters he dealt with.
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please.
Certainly for many it is , especially for those who do not know biology very well. Tell us -- which lessons or teachings OR discoveries have been made in the field of Biology have proven in any way shape or form "Evolution"? I mean of ANY LIFE? The Science of Biology proves OTHERWISE. Unless you can answer the challenge. Tick-tick...
What facts. I'd like to know if you would please. Yes, which "facts" support evolution? I'm also all ears....
Indeed. Nail hit on the head. There is an ENTIRE movement of Rebellion/Bogus Revolution-Evolution/Conspiracy to dismiss, disregard, or otherwise discredit Genesis as a "Fairy Tale". Genesis is directly hinged to Jesus Christ, His Deity (as God-in-the-Flesh), Adam's/man's original sin...and God's Plan of Redemption through the death of a sin-less Jesus. It's both a simple but convoluted if one can't wrap their head around Genesis as truth and the idea that Adam): a) Was CREATED BY GOD, sinless (all men as a result are revealed as "sinners.") It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
Frankly, I considered it a cop-out from a wishy-washy flabby "Christian" who is too cowardly to stand on the Word.
I agree, Pilate asked Jesus what is truth and then killed him to sate his own ego and position. Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number. I cling to particular truth, firstly; I do not have an opposable thumb on my foot, secondly; I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ
The good father means well (or does he?) He seems confused. Genesis indeed DOES have everything "to say for or against, the theory of evolution." "Creation(ism)" is explained in Genesis as a supernatural event. Within its text we are told that ALL life is created within SIX Days by God. That nullifies any attempted notion that any "Evolution" -- a totally unproven, un-scientific, bogus substitute version "Creation" -- is to be taken seriously on ANY level. ESPECIALLY by Christians. And especially as well by any serious "scientist" or researcher.
We should not be fazed by mere improbability. For instance, each of us is the result of thousands of generations of horny dudes persuading a woman to have sex (or raping her) during her period of fertility with a particular egg that could only be fertilized during a few days of one month in her life. And that one egg could be randomly fertilized by one of the ~200 million sperm that the man ejaculated into her while he was getting his jollies. Try to calculate the "probability" of that. I sometimes think I could almost prove that we don't exist because we ourselves are so insanely improbable. Yet we do seem to exist. So extreme improbability isn't all that...improbable. Annoying, eh? Science can be such a bitch.
Yes -- and as a couple of other posters also suggested, "Evolution" is more of a "Religion" than "Science." The basis of "truth" according to strict Evolutionists is un-proven Theory and Wishful Thinking they hope exonerates them from a Creator-God laws, Gospel, and His Judgement Day. I am created for a higher purpose and am able to contemplate God. Thirdly; I am an heir to all that God created. Fourthly I am saved by grace through belief in Jesus Christ Amen and Amen! We understand that as material beings we dwell in a physical world; But we are spiritual beings as well beneath our shell. We must feed our phsyical shell, but importantly, our spirit and soul. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. ~ Matthew 4:4
Comments (43 - 211) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAnyone who thinks we decended from apes should demonstrate they really mean it. By eating a banana and fucking a gorilla.
#3. To: A Pole (#2)
#4. To: A Pole (#0)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
Namely that it doesn't matter how we got here,
#7. To: Pinguinite (#5)
(Edited)
boris
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
And that is completely aside from the point of it being an unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
#9. To: Pinguinite (#5)
(Edited)
unfair attack on those who believe in evolution.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)
It s crude but it makes the point
#11. To: A Pole (#0)
#12. To: no gnu taxes (#11)
(Edited)
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?"
Evolution is a religion.
#13. To: A Pole (#12)
#14. To: All (#7)
boris
#15. To: BorisY (#14)
Human beings are soulless zombies
#16. To: A Pole (#12)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
#17. To: Tooconservative (#16)
We must be able to test our theories and we must discard those whose experimental results cannot be replicated.
#18. To: no gnu taxes (#17)
(Edited)
That sounds more like verification than falsification.
Falsification starts with the assumption itself. What would show this assumption not to be true? If there is no condition that could occur that would show an assumption not to be true, then it is not science.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#16)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
#20. To: no gnu taxes (#13)
First I do not respect much Popper's falsification/verification theory.
How would one ever prove evolution is "falsifiable?"
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
For example to falsify popular Neodarwinism, would be enough to prove that acquired traits can be inherited, or that mutations are not random, etc ...
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
Creationists believe in mutations (just that almost all of them are harmful and destructive) and inherited traits.
They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird.
In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
#23. To: A Pole (#19)
Debunking Popper: A Critique of Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism
#24. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
They just don't believe a reptile can evolve into a bird. In fact, there is no scientific reason to believe that.
#25. To: Tooconservative (#24)
They do admit generally to micro-evolution
#26. To: no gnu taxes (#25)
Not only do do creationists admit it, they embrace it far more robustly than evolutionists do.
#27. To: A Pole (#9)
#28. To: A Pole (#0)
#29. To: Tooconservative (#23)
Popper did go too far in his philosophizing ... However, he was dead right about how he applied the principles of falsification to hard science ... And that is why he is still a titan as a philosopher of science.
#30. To: A Pole (#29)
#31. To: Tooconservative (#30)
Obviously, you hate Popper. Fine.
#32. To: A Pole (#31)
"I have problem with recalling any significant scientific discovery made by Popper or thanks to him. Can you help me? "
#33. To: A Pole (#9)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it.
#34. To: A Pole, no gnu taxes (#12)
(Edited)
Evolution is a religion.
#35. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#33)
consider it as a very plausible theory, with many facts supporting it [EVOLUTION].
#36. To: A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13, no gnu taxes, Pinguinite (#6)
...If Genesis is false there is no reason for Jesus to come and save us.
b) ALL Sinners must be mortal and die (along with ALL life and matter) within this Material Realm as a result
c) Can not nor will NOT enter the holy presence and spiritual Realm of God- the-Creator as a Sinner
d) As a result, a substitute/proxy "sinless" man (Jesus, God-in-the-flesh) is required to "pay" for the sin-debt. Only the sin-less can be in the presence of God
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000)
#37. To: Pinguinite (#4)
This is a thoughtful, candid write-up on the issue that is indeed very much in line with the sentiments of many, though not all, Christians.
#38. To: Liberator (#37)
#39. To: Liberator (#36)
Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. ~ John 14:6, (KJV 2000) It is obvious that Believers should take Jesus at His word -- that no one will come into the Presence of the Father but by through belief in the Son, of His Blood and Redemption...
#40. To: A Pole (#0)
"[Genesis] has nothing to say, for or against, the theory of evolution."
#41. To: paraclete (#39)
(Edited)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
#42. To: paraclete (#39)
Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, they don't want to know the truth, even though it is staring them in the face. The improbability of Earth being what it is, is an astronomically huge number.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]