Can a "True Christian" Believe in the Water Cycle?

[LuisDantas]

So all the distinguished scientists who don't believe the unproven theory of evolution, you label as ignorant?

I certainly do, although there may be a reckless fame-seeker or two among them. There may be an odd case there as well. People are many and sometimes very surprising.

The bottom line is that there is no actual chance of them having an actual case by now.

Oh, and you insist on calling the ToE "unproven". That is lying outright.

If they don't swallow a theory whose advocates cannot agree on?

You realize that description is proper for Creationism, but not at all for the Theory of Evolution.

So, let's strip these rebels of their livelihoods and mock them. That should keep the rest of the scientific and academic community from daring to question, publicly at least, this theory. Shameful, IMO.

Your opinion on this matter, alas, is ill-informed at best.

 

[McBell]

The word "evolution" is inextricably linked with the theory of evolution, and all that implies and connotes.

The word "evolution" has more than one meaning and more than one use:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More
3.
CHEMISTRY
the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat.
4.
a pattern of movements or maneuvers.
"silk ribbons waving in fanciful evolutions"
5.
MATHEMATICS
the extraction of a root from a given quantity.​

 

[Sapiens]

I think that applies to many evolutionist's blind faith in evolution.

Evolution is a proven theory, it goes way beyond faith and those who understand it are anything but blind, many have spent their entire careers studying and advancing it.

I think it is a matter of dishonestly calling all change "evolution". Evolution (aka the ToE) does not simply mean change, at least as commonly understood by most people, IMO. Thus claiming the ToE simply means change is misleading at best and downright dishonest at less then best.

Shall we next examine relativity, or quantum mechanics, or bosons based on how they are "commonly understood by most people"? The problem here is that you clearly do not have even a grade school understanding of evolution.

I think if you read my post carefully, you will note I did not say you were dishonest. You apparently inferred that. And I stand by my statement. I do think it misleading at best and dishonest at less than best to label any change in a living creature "evolution". The word "evolution" is inextricably linked with the theory of evolution, and all that implies and connotes. BTW, Jesus Christ did not mince words in exposing error and those who willfully chose falsehood rather than the truth. (John 8:43-55) I am convinced the ToE is not true.

Bully for you, you have demonstrated a singular ignorance and now want to engage in an appeal to authority based solely on what you are convinced of? It does not work that way.

So all the distinguished scientists who don't believe the unproven theory of evolution, you label as ignorant? If they don't swallow a theory whose advocates cannot agree on? So, let's strip these rebels of their livelihoods and mock them. That should keep the rest of the scientific and academic community from daring to question, publicly at least, this theory. Shameful, IMO.

1. They are hardly "distinguished."
2. Evolution is proven.
3. The only thing that advocates "argue" over are some details.
4. It's kinda like becoming a devout orthodox Jew when you work weekends at a power plant. Rather a bad fit.
5. Their fates are not some conspiracy to keep all the other scientists on the straight and narrow, that's absurd. They are simply not (or no longer) qualified to perform their jobs, I suggest that they apply for disability on psychiatric grounds.

 

[Skwim]

So all the distinguished scientists who don't believe the unproven theory of evolution, you label as ignorant? If they don't swallow a theory whose advocates cannot agree on? So, let's strip these rebels of their livelihoods and mock them. That should keep the rest of the scientific and academic community from daring to question, publicly at least, this theory. Shameful, IMO.

You funny guy. Anyway . . . . . .

FYI. (I know these items have been pointed out to you before, but it's always fun to correct you in front of the other posters here. )

1. "So all the distinguished scientists who don't believe the unproven theory of evolution . . . " Only distinguished because of their renown for rejecting evolution and promotion of creationism. And "all"? You mean all four of them?

2. "unproven theory of evolution" How many times are you going to ignore the fact that theories are not subject to proof, something you've been told before?----no need to answer, we expect it to continue as long as you lack anything better to say.

3. "So, let's strip these rebels of their livelihoods and mock them." Why not? Creationism is a bankrupt idea that doesn't deserve promotion, especially when it generates income. And as any rational individual knows, those advocating it are simply asking to be mocked.

4. "That should keep the rest of the scientific and academic community from daring to question, publicly at least, this theory." You do realize don't you that . . . . Oops, obviously you don't realize, that all theories are up for question and debate. Thing is, when a theory has achieved the robust standing evolution has, there is next to nothing that would put it in question. Any questions that do arise are only in the hows and whys.