New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[firedragon]

Reporting what Darwin did, the significance of it and the value implies the defense of an attack to you? You are going to have explain that.

What about those who are creationists and yet believe in evolution? In history and today?

 

[firedragon]

Sister. No one says they can't. Accepting science is not the death of belief in religion. A Christian does not have to accept Genesis as a true and accurate description of life on Earth to still believe in God.

Great. You're right.

 

[firedragon]

Sister. No one says they can't. Accepting science is not the death of belief in religion. A Christian does not have to accept Genesis as a true and accurate description of life on Earth to still believe in God.

And I am a brother. All good.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Brother. Yet. Creationists can follow evolution. They did, and are still doing so.

Most of those that consider themselves as creationists on this forum do not accept evolution. Those that claim Christianity demand that Genesis be viewed as the only explanation for life and it's diversity. There were religious people in the past that followed some aspects of what we call evolution today, but how close it was to modern understanding and how many followed it, I cannot say.

A creationist can follow it today, but in some cases that following veers from the scientific position or is highly modified. It would be strange to accept the story in Genesis and evolution at the same time. It would make no sense. But some believe that God created life and then let it evolve. Some may believe in God, but have no idea how life arose, but accept science and the theory of evolution. I suppose they are still creationists, but very limited and different from those in this forum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I am a brother. All good.

You wrote 'brother' at the opening of one of your posts. I thought we were playing word association.

 

[firedragon]

You wrote 'brother' at the opening of one of your posts. I thought we were playing word association.

I did not understand. If you are a sister and called you brother I apologise.

 

[firedragon]

Most of those that consider themselves as creationists on this forum do not accept evolution. Those that claim Christianity demand that Genesis be viewed as the only explanation for life and it's diversity. There were religious people in the past that followed some aspects of what we call evolution today, but how close it was to modern understanding and how many followed it, I cannot say.

A creationist can follow it today, but in some cases that following veers from the scientific position or is highly modified. It would be strange to accept the story in Genesis and evolution at the same time. It would make no sense. But some believe that God created life and then let it evolve. Some may believe in God, but have no idea how life arose, but accept science and the theory of evolution. I suppose they are still creationists, but very limited and different from those in this forum.

Yes. Most creationists in the modern day dont believe in evolution. But some do. And in history they did. It was called the muhammedan theory prior to people naming it. That's the point.

Peace have a great day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I am a brother. All good.

Is your position in defense of justification of theistic evolution? Some may not view it favorably, but as long as those who hold the view accept science based on evidence, I am ok with it.

 

[firedragon]

Is your position in defense of justification of theistic evolution? Some may not view it favorably, but as long as those who hold the view accept science based on evidence, I am ok with it.

Not theistic evolution. That's a different concept and I did not touch on that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Most creationists in the modern day dont believe in evolution. But some do. And in history they did. It was called the muhammedan theory prior to people naming it. That's the point.

Peace have a great day.

Any suggested reading on this? I mean something other than 14th Century translations. Something a little more recent.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not theistic evolution. That's a different concept and I did not touch on that.

What else would it be?

 

[firedragon]

Attatweer.

What else would it be?

Attatweer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not theistic evolution. That's a different concept and I did not touch on that.

Theistic evolution would include creation, but does not have to include the guidance of the evolutionary process.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Attatweer.


Attatweer.

You will have to explain what that means and how it differs from theistic evolution. I am open that I may have the wrong idea about the latter and my view may be too inclusive.

 

[firedragon]

Theistic evolution would include creation, but does not have to include the guidance of the evolutionary process.

These are concepts that vary in definition. There is no science like theistic evolution in reality. It's just a concept. Some call it attatweer al thawjeeh. These are all just new names.

It's just evolution. Like psychology, philosophy, mathematics, or inorganic chemistry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

These are concepts that vary in definition. There is no science like theistic evolution in reality. It's just a concept. Some call it attatweer al thawjeeh. These are all just new names.

It's just evolution. Like psychology, philosophy, mathematics, or inorganic chemistry.

Theistic evolution from a Christian perspective is a concept that applies what we know from biology to a belief in God. Inclusion of that which has no evidence renders it outside of science.

Agreed, but you said that one is not the other. Now you seem to be saying they are different names for the same concept. Is that the case?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

These are concepts that vary in definition. There is no science like theistic evolution in reality. It's just a concept. Some call it attatweer al thawjeeh. These are all just new names.

It's just evolution. Like psychology, philosophy, mathematics, or inorganic chemistry.

I have had no luck finding anything on Google.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The Theists who believe in Theistic Evolution are Creationists.

I suppose so. I suppose it is true even if one views God as simply creating the natural universe and allowing life to arise and evolve naturally.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about those who are creationists and yet believe in evolution? In history and today?

Apparently I am included in that group somewhere, but I do not try to use belief to replace evidence or science.

 

[Heyo]

Exactly. That's why there were many who were believing in creationism yet believing in evolutionary biology centuries before Darwin.

Well, there was no such thing as evolutionary biology before Darwin. But when Linne proposed his classification of life a century before Darwin it didn't make a big fuss. Some people felt their ego scratched when they were put into the same category as the other apes but that was accepted theory long before Darwin.