Jose Fly
Fisker of men
So lying reflects well on Christians.....fascinating.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Answers In Genesis on Facebook
- Thread starter Dubio
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh boy, now we're making up silly labels!
McBell
Unbound
Well, You have to admit, it does fit in nicely with his made up world.
Is fundamentalist Christian a silly label? admit I am a fundamentalist Christian, but I am not a fundy.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes it does make sense in reference to Christianity because there are many, many different types of Christians that believe all different kinds of things, some Bible based, some not so much.
What on earth is a fundamentalist evolutionist??
A fundamentalist is one who accepts as true the fundamental doctrines taught in the Bible. There is some differences of opinion on some doctrines being fundamental.
It would be one wh0 accepts as true the fundamentals of what is taught in evolution. All living things originated from a common source e.g. There also there will be some differences of opinion as to what is a fundamental doctrine, in evolution as well.
All disciplines have fundamental truths
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes, there are different types of Christians.
So a "fundamentalist evolutionist" and an "evolutionist" are the same thing.
Only if all evolutionists agree on all of its doctrines are true and we know that is not true.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What doctrines are you referring to?
Is Stephen Jay Gould a "fundamentalist evolutionist" or just an "evolutionist?" How about Richard Dawkins?
Not all fundamentalist Christians believe the same things in the bible are fundamental. And I've watched different groups of fundamentalists debate in that very point.
The fundamental of evolutionary biology is inherited traits selected via natural selection, and all evolutionary biologists agree on this. The exact mechanisms by which physiological or genetic change happens is not part of the fundamentals, or primary tenet of evolution.
However, it would be as silly to call Robert Bakker a 'evolution fundamentalist' as it would be to call Carl Sagan a 'gravity fundamentalist.' Fundamentalism is a specific term that arose through the history of Christianity to counter Restorationism. There's no equivalent history in science. We didn't call Einstein a Gravity Restorationist when he expanded on Newton's conclusions.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
@omega2xx wants a time-lapse video of an animal changing into an entirely different animal - an evolutionary detail of all of the significant between-forms along the road to a macro-type evolution. This is the only type of "evidence" that would satisfy, I guarantee it.
It's not like he/she is reading all of the things presented with any sort of intent to comprehend or ingest the information. He/she only reads long enough to see that it isn't the time-lapse video type of "evidence" I described and dismisses it with words like "the beetles are still beetles, and apples are still apples."
From what I know, Dawkins would be an extreme fundamentalists. We might eve put Him the "fundy" category.
Since Gould abandoned what was the standard teaching about the fossil record for years, that would depend on what is the current doctrine for fossil record. If it is not "punctuated equilibra" he would not be a fundamentalist, His beliefs is an example of evolutionists having more than one fundamental doctrine about the fossil record. I know some evolutinist accepted his doctrine but I doubt if all have.
Actually all do not agree with that doctrine. Colin Patterson, a well respected evolution says, "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms f natural selection, no one has even gotten near it. The truth is "natural selection" IMO, he is to be commended for going against a fundamental evolution doctrine. His rejecting natural selection did no bring him around to accepting creationism. He is still an evolutionists.
But it should be. Science works on exact and proven principles. That is how science progresses to discovers other scientific principles.
[/QUOTE]
All disciplines have fundamentals that every followers agrees to. All born again Christians accept the deity of Christ e.g.
Evolution is no different. The only doctrine of evolution I am sure about is "all life descended from a common ancestor,"
It is amusing that evolution can't give any evidence for what was the first life form. Yes I am aware that it is now separated in to evolution and abiogenesis, but it was not so originally.
He has, in no way, rejected natural selection. And has stated that the quote was taken out of context by a creationist who brought a tape recorder to a lecture and only quoted it in part. In fact, the debate wasn't about the mechanisms of evolution in terms of what they do, but what they explain.
Colin Patterson Revisits His Famous Question about Evolution. Origins & Design 17:1. Nelson, Paul A.
Proof is for math and vodka. The accumulation of data is never called proofs in science. And a fundamental of a theory, specifically, isn't comparable to the fundamentals of scripture. Firstly because there is no sola scriptura in science, the foundation of science isn't faith but skepticism. That's why there's peer review.
Born again is a small subject of fundamentalism, and the broader term is used for many disagreeing 'fundamentals' such as the aforementioned solae debates of the importance of scripture v faith v works. Not to mention how much significance in fundamental discussions should be taken revelations and the writings of Paul. It's simply not that simple.
What is the difference between tenet and doctrine?
The primary tenant of evolution is
Evolution - Wikipedia
There is literally no difference between so-called micro and macro evolution. The process which diversified at the species level is the same at a genus and family level.
Genetics didn't used to exist as a field of study. Neither did biochemistry as a distinct field from chemistry. Abiogenesis isn't talked about in evolutionary studies because evolution, as already defined, describes population genetics, the first life does not apply.
However, to say we don't know anything about abiogenesis is disingenuous. We know a lot, but we don't have the exact conditions to create the exact way life formed, just like we can't perfectly recreate a snowflake, and that's a hell of a lot less variables.
But to explain evidence to you about abiogenesis that we do know, I'd have to go all biochem on you and, as I said earlier, I cannot copy paste whole articles nor am I willing to break them down into chunks for you. Though some other RFers have in the past. Abiogenesis, explained.
But if you really want the big list of articles on abiogenesis then you'd have to go to someplace like talkorigins. Abiogenesis FAQs: The Origins of Life
Or listen to one of the many brilliant lectures on YouTube.
Or even watch the Cassiopeia projects video series:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
If you cannot refute their arguments yourself... why do you believe in evolution?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Even then he'd probably call it fake.
In this thread you can see people independently reaching the same conclusion about Omega ("waste of time"). Now we'll just see if we all act accordingly.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/colpat171.htm
I believe Patterson is an honest person so I will accept his explanation.
IMO, that is the saddest statement one can make about science, Especially when they believe science is the answer to evolution. All advances in science have been made on the basis ow what science has proved, Now know to type blood because science has PROVED, there is more than one type and they also proved if thy give you the wrong type, it will kill you. Science has prove all living things m, with 2 excepetions had DNA. Thay have also proved the ones without DNA, have RNA.
Sure there is---all living things we have originated from one source---Whales originated from a land animal---dino from chickens---man from apes---the fossil record confirms evolution. I could go on and on.
Most Biblical doctrines are fairly simple. Some like predestination and free will are very complex. They may be small but understanding them is critical. There is no broader term in Biblical Christianity. Every discipline has those who disagree with others, You also have to consider that there are well qualified scientist who reject evolution.
I agree that theee is no difference in micro and macro evolution. The same process that makes one has to be used to make the other. I just disagree that all living things originated from one source. Especially that they don't really know what the first life for was and the mechanism that cause it to become something is was not originally.
Since originally evolution did talk about the first life, but could not prove their opinion, they separated it from evolution,
"Actually you don't know anything about the first life, especially how it developed from lifeless elements.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/abiogenesis-explained.12207/
Not necessary, no science can explain how life originated from lifeless elements. AS far as we know that is impossible. In fact science can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/
Talk Origins will not offer any scientific evidence. They and will only parrot the usual
evo talking points.
The will not offer any evidence about the first life. It will all be speculation of the wildest kind.
Or even watch the Cassiopeia projects video series:
I will stick to ICR for any science I need explained.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Answers in Genesis is clearly a humor/parody site for anyone with a brain and a sense of humor. Anyone who takes it seriously cannot be reasoned with.