If you really wanted to know more about calculus, would you go to a Religious Forum to learn about it? How about if you wished to become proficient in Chinese? Is this the place you'd seek information?
-
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!
First time posting a thread, so go easy on me✌️
- Thread starter MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
- Start date
Nimos
Well-Known Member
No, this wouldn't make sense.
And there is no coincidence here.
None of the people you listed are said to be anything other than homo sapiens. So all of them would have to put where Noah is. The Nephilim according to the Bible were supposed to be "giants", but neanderthals were only around 1.5m - 1.7m high depending on gender, so that doesn't make sense either.
Also, why would you change years to mean millions, as far as I know, there is no support for this in the Bible. It is equal to some people claiming that a day in Genesis could mean billions/millions of years because that would kind of fit better with science. But there is nothing in the Bible supporting this either.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Okay so the single cell theory is not part of evolution?
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Well I am also interested to hear the view on theist, is that a bad thing?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
What @The Hammer is referring to is abiogenesis, which is still unknown.
Evolution is only about how life evolves.
Yes, it is, unless you have some reason to suppose the theist actually knows anything about the subject. If you look throught the many, many threads on evolution just in this forum alone, you will find that the answer is far too often, "no, not a thing -- but lots of opinions."
And those opinions will tech you lots about theists -- but absolutely nothing at all about the science of evolution, which is a very real thing.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, as an atheist I still believe different about real. But yes, each of us have our own opinions on real.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
I get where you are coming from. The thing is even tho the claim of evolution is considered a fact by a majority of scientists, we all know that things can change when more evidence is found. And since there are also scientists who are theist, I would like to also wanna hear the evidence of their position.
Or do you think that there is no evidence that contradicts evolution?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Is there?
I mean real honest to god evidence, not the rehashed PRATT offered up by creationists.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Sorry don’t understand, can you rephrase?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Is there evidence that contradicts evolution?
I mean real honest to god evidence, not the rehashed PRATT offered up by creationists.
Welcome to RF there is much friendly debate on the subject...
Darwin said evolution is "descent with modification". Species change over time, give rise to new species who share a common ancestor.
What is a kind? I hear is bandied about by creationists who don't actually define what they mean by "kind".
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, science is generally link to some form of naturalism and general is methodological naturalism. Look it up if you have to.
Not even in your native language? That will put you at a disadvantage. This is a topic that is learned by reading a lot of words. Here are just a few to summarize for you:
Evolution is the natural (undirected) process that transformed an initial population of cells into the tree of life we find today. Genes change over generations. Offspring are genetically and physically different from their parents. Nature favors some creatures more than their siblings. They will outcompete and out-reproduce their peers and shape their species' futures more than the less successful forms. Over a few generations, the changes are small. Over much larger periods of time, the changes are large.
If you don't understand any of those words, try a dictionary first. If that doesn't help, bring your questions here.
It doesn't matter what I "think" about the existence of such evidence. What matters are the facts that are known: evolution is among the most studied areas of science, with thousands of museums and universities chock full of evidence, everywhere around the world. And in spite of all that study, no evidence at all has been found that contradicts evolution.
A second, equally important fact is this: anti-evolutionist theists and "Intelligent Design" enthusiasts have also been diligently searching for such contradictory evidence -- and they haven't found any, either.
Make of that what you will, but the smart money will go where the evidence points.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Sure I get you, that why I want to hear different views from different people
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
And
sure i understand what you are saying. So where should i start. Any recommendations on which evidence I should look into first?
Just want to say a couple of things as someone with a strong scientific background in biology who is also deeply religious.
First, biological evolution is the closest thing that the science of biology has to a unified theory for the discipline. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of biological evolution. That's how important it is. Biological evolution, in effect, accounts for biological diversity as well as life's continued flourishing on a more general level. Put simply, understanding biological evolution is essential to understanding the science of biology. That's why a course in biological evolution is required for college-level biology majors at universities across the country. It should be included at the high school level as well, but often isn't for better or worse.
Second, part of why biological evolution is inadequately covered at the high school level is that understanding it requires a fairly demanding level of prior knowledge in biology more generally. To understand biological evolution, you have to at minimum also understand genetics. You also have to understand ecology. Because biological evolution is all about changes in allele frequencies over time (genetics) in entire populations of organisms primarily in response to environmental conditions (ecology). I'll also add that modern biological evolution is not Darwinism. Modern life scientists only really talk about Darwin in a historical context; the scientific understanding of biological evolution is much more sophisticated and nuanced than what was originally proposed many dozens of years ago.
First, biological evolution is the closest thing that the science of biology has to a unified theory for the discipline. Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of biological evolution. That's how important it is. Biological evolution, in effect, accounts for biological diversity as well as life's continued flourishing on a more general level. Put simply, understanding biological evolution is essential to understanding the science of biology. That's why a course in biological evolution is required for college-level biology majors at universities across the country. It should be included at the high school level as well, but often isn't for better or worse.
Second, part of why biological evolution is inadequately covered at the high school level is that understanding it requires a fairly demanding level of prior knowledge in biology more generally. To understand biological evolution, you have to at minimum also understand genetics. You also have to understand ecology. Because biological evolution is all about changes in allele frequencies over time (genetics) in entire populations of organisms primarily in response to environmental conditions (ecology). I'll also add that modern biological evolution is not Darwinism. Modern life scientists only really talk about Darwin in a historical context; the scientific understanding of biological evolution is much more sophisticated and nuanced than what was originally proposed many dozens of years ago.
MayPeaceBeUpOnYou
Active Member
Yeah you are right about to understand the evolution you have to have a certain knowledge before in order to have a better understanding. And this is one of the reason why I have neglected to go to deeper in this topic,
So maybe you can share your thoughts about evolution? Maybe a summary on what you think is probable and what is questionable ?
Details will change as more data is dicovered. But the details don't mean evolution is in question. The new data only tells us how evolution took different paths through history. Evolution happens all over the world, but since there are different species and different environments (like hot or freezing) there are different species. That's why polar bears are white in the arctic, but brown and black in more moderate climates. Evolution happens, but scientists are still putting together the story of how evolution did its thing through changing climate and changing species.
Experts in science know to keep their religion separate. As we see there are theists who try to make their religion relevant to science and it only gets screwed up. It's corrupt religion and bad science. Get your religion right by getting science right. This is what the wise people do.
There is none. There are creationists who have corrupted their religion by misrepresenting science by creating bogus claims about it. They are frauds, but they have been successful in taking advantage of some believers who are desperate to make their religion seem valid in a way that it can't be. In the end they ruin their religion and don't learn science, so utter failure.