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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But you do. You are merely too uneducated to understand this. Tell me, if a person says that God lies, but does not understand how he said that God is a liar, is that person still in trouble with God?
Due to the fact of evolution there is no "absolute" definition of any species. This is well understood. And it is continuously supported by nature. The problem is that you want a creationist type of definition and reality keeps showing that those definitions are incorrect.
ergo, scientific/forensic police, trying to solve a crime without eye witnesses, is an oxymoron, right? They cannot possibly use science to solve their case, if science is not applicable in case of lack of observers Of what really happened.
I can answer that for you. Because the scientific method produces more reliable results than just about any other method it is well respected. They crave that respect for their bad ideas. But of course the scientific method shows their beliefs to be wrong. So they are in a bit of a bind. They want the respect that the scientific method engenders in topics, but to get that respect they would have to ruin the scientific method.
You probably already agree that the faith-based thinker (and much of the lay public) uses the word to mean something different than the critical thinker, who simply means that all claims should be subject to critical analysis before being believed. The faithful generally mean that they don't believe an idea when they use that word. When I say I'm skeptical, I mean that I don't accept anything as truth just because it was said or written, that there is an empirical test that must be passed before belief. When the creationist uses the same word, that's not what he means. He means that he has already rejected the idea usually with the wave of a hand because it conflicts with his faith-based beliefs.
I just had to comment on what I think is the first post from you've I've read that wasn't a criticism of American liberals. But I also wanted to make the argument for why you are probably wrong. The biblical creation myth authors like all other creation mythicists, took their best guess as to how all of this got here, and guessed wrong. I'm sure that that's something that you would agree with if we were talking about any of the now defunct religions from history, but not if it appears in your scriptures. Then it cannot be error, so the motivated reasoning begins to try to make the language conform with the science better, and it includes a day not being a literal day, because we know that that is incorrect. But the evidence against that reading is threefold. First, there is no reason to assume that the word doesn't have its literal meaning, no indication that it is a metaphorical usage. Second, the days of creation contain a morning and an evening. And third, the seventh day is a day of rest, and one is commanded to emulate God by resting from one sunset to the next - 24 hours.
It does not demonstrate that there was a first mated couple, nor that these were the first human beings - just a common ancestor.
It's not. You should look at science resources, not creationist sources, whose agenda is not truth as defined by a critical thinker, but rather, the promoting of religion by any effective means.
Except that it works fine and is compatible with the available evidence. Do you have any reason for rejecting that besides faith in something else?
We don't have a definition for human being that allows us to identify a first one. There isn't even agreement about its species. Some mean Homo sapiens, but some mean any creature of the genus Homo, which includes H. erectus and H. habilis, and some include any hominid, which goes back to the break with the chimp line and includes the genuses Homo, Australopithecus, Paranthropus and Ardipithecus.
--and the fact that the two groups lived side by side for many tens of thousands of years always maintaining distinct physical and behavioral characteristics means nothing to you. We're done.
huh, you're asking me if the "evidence is woke" right after I just said so? OK, we're done.
You're setting it aside and at the same time you're bringing it up. Let's face it, for better of for worse I've (however inadvertantly) pushed one too many hot buttons here so I'm afraid I'll just have to step back.
It was a legitimate question. And you need a valid source if you want to claim that the interbreeding of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis is controversial. This would be the first time that I heard that claim.
I am not setting it aside. Just explain how the news that we interbred is controversial.
For me pure science means this:
"You refuse to learn even the basics of science so of course you have no clue whenever you speak of any scientific matters."
It is not, if you are literal.
So, you don't think mutations happen?
Sorry, I don't see any good reason to think they could not have had enough genetic variation.
Yes, I can understand the idea how it would happen. The problem is, there is no good reason to believe all species developed in that way. On the contrary, there is lot of reason to think it is not possible. For example because all observable evidence shows things are degenerating, like for example y-chromosome.
Because it says "probably", which means it is only guessing.
So, how it is possible that we have billions of different people, if one person can produce only one person's DNA?
Yes, and no reason to see that as a problem.
Where it is said man is created before animals? I don't think Bible tells so, if you read it accurately.
Sounds like you don't actually understand or know what genetic variation is.