Honest opinions from Christians please

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does indirectly. In order for there to be life on earth, we have to have earth. Earth has to have a star. Therefore, it matters how the star got there.

EDIT: macroevolution is dependent on stellar evolution.

Meteorology is dependent on the formation of stars. Geology is dependent on the formation of stars. Chemistry is dependent on the formation of stars.

None of this makes the formation of stars "stellar evolution", "stellar meteorology", "stellar geology" or "stellar chemistry".

And it certainly doesn't mean that the Theory of Evolution has anything to say about stars at all.

 

[starlite]

Glad you're content, but it's not "so-called". Shoot, since fourth graders seem to know more than you do about scientific fact and evolutionary processes, I have to wonder just how "lower" your education is.

You can only assume that I have limited knowledge of science and evolution. I chose not to debate that fact. My conclusion is that you would not accept anything I have to contribute.

 

[Draka]

You can only assume that I have limited knowledge of science and evolution. I chose not to debate that fact. My conclusion is that you would not accept anything I have to contribute.

Since the only things you seem to have contributed are twisted lies and quote mines from creationist websites...I'd probably have to agree. Your quality of contributions thus far has been pitiful. When that changes, let me know.

 

[MidnightSun]

I ask these questions as I am truly perplexed, not having a go at you.

How do you continue to believe and have faith in the bible when it is rife with misinformation, misleading and at times outright lies. My examples are:
Mankind is around 4000-6000 years old. Science has proven beyond any doubt that we are at least 60, 000 years old for homo-sapiens, then we have all of the other variations of man prior.

Noah's flood was global. It was regional! Sediment layers, ice cores and many many other facts provea global flood as incorrect.

The sun goes up and down. The earth orbit the sun and may give this appearance to assuming people- but if the bible was the word of god then this literary error would not have occurred.
If the bible really and truly is the word of god, how did these very fundamental facts get so wrong? There are literally hundreds more, but I use these 3 are they have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1. I don't believe that.
2. I don't believe that either.
3. I am fully aware that the Bible contains misleading information.

I'm baptised Catholic:angel2:
But yet, I don't believe in some stuff and I refuse to lie about my beliefs.

 

[Autodidact]

:sad4:
I hate these discussions because all I here is how uninfomed I am, and nothing else.

There is a remedy for that.

Evolution covers many areas. How life originated, how the cosmos originated, how stars originated, etc.

Nope. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is a specific theory in a specific field of science, Biology. It addresses two main questions: How did we get so many different species of living things on earth, and why do they look the way they do. That's all, but it's quite a lot for one scientific theory, I think you'll agree.

This I knew. I hadn't meant to lump them together. Atheists were the "scoffers", and evolution was the "oppositions of science falsely so-called." You can't deny though that most atheists are evolutionists.

Most atheists accept modern scientific discoveries, including ToE, because we have no reason to discard scientific knowledge, unlike some Christians and Muslims.

2. The Grand Canyon

Really? How so? We just had quite a large flood in Louisiana, were any canyons formed? How about after that Tsunami flood-any canyons there? Why then is the Grand Canyon evidence of anything but slow, gradual erosion, which is how all the other canyons in the world formed?

, fossil locations,

Really? How? How does a flood account for giant, fleet-footed raptors being in lower and older rock layers than sloths? Why are ancient, extinct flying creatures in older, lower rock layers than more recent plants? How does a flood explain that?

flood legends are all evidence of a universal flood.

Are you sure they're not evidence of many local floods?

Does it bother you that there isn't enough water on earth to flood the entire planet?

3. There has been no proof that the earth is 60,000 years old. There has been only 6000-10000 years of recorded history. Anything beyond that is guess work.

I should just get a stamp. SCIENCE ISN'T ABOUT PROOF. IT'S ABOUT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. Please don't make me have to tell you again. There are caves in France with paintings older than that. Did I mention that you're very uninformed?

 

[Autodidact]

You see what I mean?

That's all I hear... :sleep:

jacob: You say that people keep telling you that you're uninformed. What do you conclude from this?

 

[Autodidact]

Please show me why I'm ignorant. I didn't see any evidence offered that those things suggested in the OP were at all conclusive.

Because you don't even know what the ToE is, but you know that's it's false. Do you see how not knowing what something is is ignorant? Do you see how it doesn't make sense to decide that something's false without knowing what it is?

That was toungue and cheek. I was simply pointing out that evolution is false.

But since you're woefully uninformed, you would have no way of knowing that, would you.

You seem mighty adamant that I'm ignorant, a liar, etc., and I just got here. I'm not playing the victim: I'm just perplexed. I made some statements, you proceeded to dismiss them as lies and ignorance, without any explanation as to why they are lies and ignorance.

Let's start with learning what ToE is, how does that sound?

I mean, if someone dismissed Christianity because they know that they bogeyman isn't real, you'd have a hard time explaining to them that Christ died for their sins, wouldn't you?

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, I'm aware that evolution generally refers to the evolution of life, and is therefore in the field of biology -ie Macroevolution.

However, when we contrast in to creationism, we begin talking about Cosmic, stellar, etc. evolution. For example, macroevolution that you're talking about could only have happenned without a fairly large amount of time -without that time, the theory is sunk. Creationism purports that there was not that much time. Thus, we begin talking about the lot of evolutions.

Well if you want to talk about evolution, then why start with creationism? Does that make sense?

So what you're saying basically is that you reject all modern natural science, not just Biology, but Geology, Cosmology, Astronomy, most of Physics, Archeology, Anthropology, and just science in general? Has it been your experience that science is not a good way to learn about the natural world?

 

[Autodidact]

Point is.....I am perfectly content with appearing ignorant in the eyes of those who flaunt their so called higher education

You don't appear ignorant, starlite, you are ignorant. I see that doesn't bother you, which I find very sad. This is one of the things that I hate about Christianity--that it promotes ignorance.

 

[Autodidact]

Any research I do will not be on a blog.

What exactly did you find ignorant? Are you ever going to tell me, or was I right in my assumption that you can't, and that's why the hominem arguments started.

Well let's see--where to start. Do you know what the scientific method is? Do you agree that it is a good way to learn about how the natural world works?

Do you understand that Evolution is a theory in the scientific discipline of Biology and that as such it says absolutely nothing about whether God exists or not?

Did you know that ToE is one of the most robust, supported, and widely accepted (by Biologists) theories in all of science?

Let's start with that.

Do you know what ToE says about how species arise?

 

[McBell]

 

[starlite]

You don't appear ignorant, starlite, you are ignorant. I see that doesn't bother you, which I find very sad. This is one of the things that I hate about Christianity--that it promotes ignorance.

Fair enough....I do choose to be ignorant according to the world's standard but you are choosing to be ignorant according to God's standard. We all have choices to make, right?

1Corinthians 2:14 and surrounding context.

 

[Autodidact]

Fair enough....I do choose to be ignorant according to the world's standard but you are choosing to be ignorant according to God's standard. We all have choices to make, right?

1Corinthians 2:14 and surrounding context.

I see that you assume that you know what God's standard is. Did someone appoint you God's representative on earth?

What makes you think I'm ignorant? Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I don't know about it. My experience is that I know more about Christianity than most Christians.

 

[RemnanteK]

Ooo... a Mary-Go-Round... can I get on?

 

[starlite]

You don't appear ignorant, starlite, you are ignorant. I see that doesn't bother you, which I find very sad. This is one of the things that I hate about Christianity--that it promotes ignorance.

What I stated was a response to your post

 

[starlite]

Ooo... a Mary-Go-Round... can I get on?

Sure....hop on !!!:yes:

 

[RemnanteK]

It is a cursed evil to any man to become as absorbed in any subject as I am in mine. ~Charles Darwin

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. ~Charles Darwin

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is a cursed evil to any man to become as absorbed in any subject as I am in mine. ~Charles Darwin

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic. ~Charles Darwin

And....?

 

[RemnanteK]

And....?

Oh, I think Darwin had a great mind for reasoning most things.
More than most people that live today.
But even throughout most of his works he kept an open mind to the possibility of a creator.
Most people that use him as a reason for the 'theory of evolution' don't realize he himself couldn't get past the possibility of some form of master creator.
Darwin was a smart man, but even he knew he wasn't infallible.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Oh, I think Darwin had a great mind for reasoning most things.
More than most people that live today.
But even throughout most of his works he kept an open mind to the possibility of a creator.
Most people that use him as a reason for the 'theory of evolution' don't realize he himself couldn't get past the possibility of some form of master creator.
Darwin was a smart man, but even he knew he wasn't infallible.

Apart from the fact that evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.