Should we reopen the book on Evolution?

My point is simply because two people are discussing issues diametrically opposed from one another, it doesn't necessary make either one the truth.

The Bible wasn't written to teach science, but if it is everything it's suppose to be it would make sense that when it touches on science you would expect it to agree with things the scientific community would agree is fact today. Not necessarily what the scientific community believed at the time it was written.

Yes, I've opened a Bible before and I like science.

 

There's nothing wrong with thinking people expecting evidence to support a truth. Being reasonable is a quality all points of view should appreciate.

I get the sun is 93 million miles away. I appreciate your acknowledgment of the bible's definition of Faith. Sounds a lot like "cause and effect" doesn't it?

 

Some scholars believe at one time thousands of years ago that the earth was supported by 4 large elephants standing on the back of a giant sea turtle. Over 3000 years ago the bible correctly stated that the earth had no visable stand. Job 26:7 simply says God hung the earth on nothing. When the astronauts sent the pictures back from outer space this was a truth. Not 3000 years ago.

The encyclopedia Brittanica states: "The earliest known images that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe.....The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance. Around 2700 years ago the bible stated very clearly at Isaiah 40:22, "There is one who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." Some translations say sphere, the globe, the round. Taken from the Hebrew word "chugh" means circle. Again seeing is believing back then who knew?

There's two, get back if you need some more?

 

one thing about the bible, you have to give it credit for being skeptical about the "earth is supported by elephants" hypothesis. good work bible.

 

Greek Philosophers actually. You know how those guys can be. Shows you how much we take for granted.

 

I think part of the problem is we need to distinguish between micro-evolution (within a species) and macro-evolution (across species).

link:
What is Micro and Macro-Evolution?

I accept that micro-evolution does take place. I reject the idea that one species can evolve into another.

I can only speak to the catholic faith here, no expert on the others. But even the catholic church recognizes "mysteries" that a human mind simply cannot grasp. I think it is dishonest to act as if anyone is claiming to know everything. There are simply competing theories or ideas or explanations and some seem more reasonable to me than others.

Well, what are the facts? I find some articles that say there are no transitional fossils. I believe Red listed a wikipedia link that lists a whole page of them.

Are there or aren't there? Also, the creationist argue that a living organism is too complex for it to be put together piece-meal. Remove any part of it and the organism couldn't survive and reproduce. Is this a fact or not?

And regarding the fossil record. How many of the fossils that textbooks use as examples are accurate? Have those in the evolutionist camp acknowledged the hoaxes that have occured?

 

what you like to do is take a position of extraordinary ignorance and act like that you have a valid viewpoint. of course there are transitional fossils. the question is whether you can accept reality or not.

as far as the complex organism goes, your point is really too stupid to make sense. over time, organisms adapted and improved. an animal with an ability to sense light was better off than one that didnt. and then a mutant that has more light sensitivity came along and he did even better. pretty soon (and by soon i mean over millions of years) animals had developed more and more ability to see until they have really functional eyes. so even though an eye is pretty awesome and complicated, it develops over time.

i know you are a truther and your plan is to be woefully ignorant of reality and to fill in the blanks of your knowledge with theories that are infinitely more absurd than reality.

i have read articles that say scientology is real and we were dropped here by alien xenus or whatever. you have to at least develop some ability to tell reality from fiction.

 

How about this guy:

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith-

Here is a list of other scientists who support creationist theories:

And some scientific organizations:

14.Chadwick, Arthur



martin:

.

So, what do you expect me to do? If we can sit here and dismiss the IPCC then why is it so outlandish to say the same problem may be present regarding evolution? Despite what you would like others to believe there are legitimate scientists that question evolutionary theory. Why are your scientists more legit than mine? I don't understand what basis you have for making this claim. Consensus? Consensus don't mean jack. It just demonstrates which side has the most funding.