• 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!

The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

McBell

McBell

Unbound
Commoner said:
Well then, what's the problem with discussing evolution?
Click to expand...
The problem with discussing evolution with Danmac is that he knows next to nothing about evolution.

He spends all his time trying to get the discusion moved over onto god, or atheism, or posting links to sites authored by people who know even less about evolution than himself.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
I'm stuck on abiogenesis right now.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you right, all of Biology should be on hold until scientists figure out that single question? Is that your position?

O.K. you're stuck on abiogenesis. Until you figure you abiogenesis, you have nothing to say about evolution. Cool. So will you stop saying things about evolution? Because you wouldn't want people to think you're less than honest, would you?

I'm not stuck on abiogenesis, though, so I'll keep on.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
So if I understand you right, all of Biology should be on hold until scientists figure out that single question? Is that your position?

O.K. you're stuck on abiogenesis. Until you figure you abiogenesis, you have nothing to say about evolution. Cool. So will you stop saying things about evolution? Because you wouldn't want people to think you're less than honest, would you?

I'm not stuck on abiogenesis, though, so I'll keep on.
Click to expand...

Ok so for the sake of argument we will say God did it, and He used theistic evolution to bring about all species. My only contention as a believer is that when God did it He created humans as a higher life from than all other species. In agreeing with one common ancestor, humans are reduced to the animal kingdom. I'm sorry, but I believe nature itself shows us that humans are a distinct species from the entire animal kingdom. We are a higher from of life because we are created in the image of the creator. That's Bible, not science.
 
J

JustWondering2

Just the facts Ma'am
Danmac said:
Ok so for the sake of argument we will say God did it, and He used theistic evolution to bring about all species. My only contention as a believer is that when God did it He created humans as a higher life from than all other species. In agreeing with one common ancestor, humans are reduced to the animal kingdom. I'm sorry, but I believe nature itself shows us that humans are a distinct species from the entire animal kingdom. We are a higher from of life because we are created in the image of the creator. That's Bible, not science.
Click to expand...

Yep you got that right! The bible not science. A book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of sheep herders and you beleive them over science? That explanes everything. The book was written by MEN not by GOD! I prefer to worship God not a book written by men.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
JustWondering2 said:
Yep you got that right! The bible not science. A book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of sheep herders and you beleive them over science? That explanes everything. The book was written by MEN not by GOD! I prefer to worship God not a book written by men.
Click to expand...

Who said there was a God?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Ok so for the sake of argument we will say God did it, and He used theistic evolution to bring about all species. My only contention as a believer is that when God did it He created humans as a higher life from than all other species. In agreeing with one common ancestor, humans are reduced to the animal kingdom. I'm sorry, but I believe nature itself shows us that humans are a distinct species from the entire animal kingdom. We are a higher from of life because we are created in the image of the creator. That's Bible, not science.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you, you're giving up on the "kinds" thing, and accepting ToE, with the proviso that God created human beings in His image? Is that your position now?
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Danmac said:
Ok so for the sake of argument we will say God did it, and He used theistic evolution to bring about all species. My only contention as a believer is that when God did it He created humans as a higher life from than all other species. In agreeing with one common ancestor, humans are reduced to the animal kingdom. I'm sorry, but I believe nature itself shows us that humans are a distinct species from the entire animal kingdom. We are a higher from of life because we are created in the image of the creator. That's Bible, not science.
Click to expand...

JustWondering2 said:
Yep you got that right! The bible not science. A book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of sheep herders and you beleive them over science? That explanes everything. The book was written by MEN not by GOD! I prefer to worship God not a book written by men.
Click to expand...

Danmac said:
Who said there was a God?
Click to expand...
:facepalm:
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
So if I understand you, you're giving up on the "kinds" thing, and accepting ToE, with the proviso that God created human beings in His image? Is that your position now?
Click to expand...
No I want both.....Kinds and theistic evolution. God intelligently and with purpose used theistic evolution to create a man, not australopithecus.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
No I want both.....Kinds and theistic evolution. God intelligently and with purpose used theistic evolution to create a man, not australopithecus.
Click to expand...

So your position is unchanged? You accept ToE, except that you believe it's confined to an undefined, unrecognizable category called a "kind?"

Now if you're done trying to sidetrack into everything else you can think of, can we begin to look at the evidence?

Let's take beetles (at least the third time I've asked) one kind, or 450,000, or something else?

What category of evidence would you like to look at first? Here's a few choices:

pattern of DNA similarity
cladistics
pattern of homologies
geographical distribution of species
pattern of vestigial features
reproductive mechanism
fossil record
age of the earth
observed speciation events

Pick one to start.
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Danmac said:
No I want both.....Kinds and theistic evolution. God intelligently and with purpose used theistic evolution to create a man, not australopithecus.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have two questions for you.

1. Do you accept the existence of Australopithecines?

2. When do you think Australopithecines lived?
 
Gunfingers

Gunfingers

Happiness Incarnate
Danmac said:
No I want both.....Kinds and theistic evolution. God intelligently and with purpose used theistic evolution to create a man, not australopithecus.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that God's intention was to create man, and he did so by having man evolve from Australopithecus? Because if so then congrats, you've discovered theistic evolution, and we are no longer at odds.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Gunfingers said:
So you're saying that God's intention was to create man, and he did so by having man evolve from Australopithecus? Because if so then congrats, you've discovered theistic evolution, and we are no longer at odds.
Click to expand...

canstock0098163.png
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
So your position is unchanged? You accept ToE, except that you believe it's confined to an undefined, unrecognizable category called a "kind?"

Now if you're done trying to sidetrack into everything else you can think of, can we begin to look at the evidence?

Let's take beetles (at least the third time I've asked) one kind, or 450,000, or something else?

What category of evidence would you like to look at first? Here's a few choices:

pattern of DNA similarity
cladistics
pattern of homologies
geographical distribution of species
pattern of vestigial features
reproductive mechanism
fossil record
age of the earth
observed speciation events

Pick one to start.
Click to expand...
observed speciation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top