Is Evolution Probable or Improbable? It Depends On Who You Ask.

[Frank Robert]

You presented biased evo-material.

You admitted the evidence-scientist don't know...which means by FAITH you have accepted their biased theory.

We are human, we don't know everything, and what we think we know may turn out to be incorrect. Science does not set out to prove anything. It can only provide the evidence up to the present. Scientists generally accept or affirm the scientific evidence which can be superseded as we learn more. This is why science is said to be self-correcting.

I have seen no reason not to stick with the bible.

Many people have both. Faith and science occupy different domains but is there is nothing preventing scientists from having a religious faith. Many scientists are devout Christians such as Kenneth Miller whose biology text books are used in many colleges and universities including religious ones. Also see: Francis Collins.

 

[Frank Robert]

Currently there is a plan to reduce the population and bring about an age of trans humanism. many refer to it as the system of the beast and can be seen all over the news today if one is awake and looks.

Sounds like you are reading too many conspiracy theories. The problem I have with such theories is they often are made up to pit neighbors against neighbor. I am not saying not to express our differences, only that most of the time we can do so while w/o malice.

 

[CrowCross]

We are human, we don't know everything,

Yet you KNOW a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Right?

 

[CrowCross]

Sounds like you are reading too many conspiracy theories.

Perhaps...but it sounds like you only listen to the CNN mockingbird narrative.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yet you KNOW a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong. Right?

I think that if I grew up in a home that believed and church that instilled that a literal interpretation of Genesis were correct and necessary for salvation that I would believe it is correct and likely have a difficult time understanding science or accepting evolution as taught in public high school for fear that my soul would be dammed.

 

[Frank Robert]

Perhaps...but it sounds like you only listen to the CNN mockingbird narrative.

I only watch TV for movies, mostly film noir and some series on BritBox. I select the news that I read from google news and current science news from Phys.org

 

[CrowCross]

I only watch TV for movies, mostly film noir and some series on BritBox. I select the news that I read from google news and current science news from Phys.org

Google news????? Really? I feel sorry for you as you only get fed the narrative you're supposed to believe.

 

[CrowCross]

I think that if I grew up in a home that believed and church that instilled that a literal interpretation of Genesis were correct and necessary for salvation that I would believe it is correct and likely have a difficult time understanding science or accepting evolution as taught in public high school for fear that my soul would be dammed.

Salvation is believing in Christ Jesus' sacrificial atonement He made on the cross...where His blood washed away our sins....NOT if you accept theo-evoism.

 

[Manfred]

There are many things that we do not know or understand and some of them we will never know or understand. If it is of scientific interest we form testable hypotheses but that does not guarantee we will succeed. So it is ok to say we do not know as opposed to pretending that we do know.

I can agree, but pretending to know something that is really not known and going as far as teaching this as truth to vulnerable children is not good.

As do many other Christians from many different denominations as well as other religions.

Please. I accept that there are denominations who have Christ as their Savior in common. I also understand that there are other religions.
NONE of these other religions make the same claim as I. Muslims for example do not believe in a personal God who indwells believers and who leads them into all truth.

I am not a statistician. What I do know is you need to form a testable and repeatable hypothesis if you wish to obtain a reliable statistical probability.

So do you, and I can tell you if you had to do that with the order as seen in the universe and even narrowed down to earth, the seasons, gravity, nature, man, etc. and try and test and repeat your hypothesis of chance having caused it all, what do you imagine as an honest and honorable person that statistical probability would be.

 

[Frank Robert]

Google news????? Really? I feel sorry for you as you only get fed the narrative you're supposed to believe.

It looks like you do not know what google news is. Here is the url check it out for yourself.

https://news.google.com/home?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Have a blast.

 

[Frank Robert]

Salvation is believing in Christ Jesus' sacrificial atonement He made on the cross...where His blood washed away our sins....

Yes I agree.

NOT if you accept theo-evoism.

It must be an awesome feeling to believe one can speak with such authority.

The Bible does not say believe in a 6000 or be damned nor does it claim to be inerrant. I am sure that had I been brought up in a family and church that believed that in 6000 year world, I likely would believe it also but I was not.

There are four ways to interpret the bible:

Moral Interpretation​

Literal Interpretation​

Allegorical Interpretation​

Anagogical Interpretation​

​

Based on my education and experiences, I lean heavily towards the moral interpretation with the emphasis on how we live is to follow (imitate) Jesus as best we can.

I lean away from the literal because the Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant and just as important literalism fosters intolerance towards others who hold different interpretations of the biblical texts. This is evident in the way that many, not all, literalists damn evolution and all those that affirm the science of evolution.

There are many, some people claim thousands, of Christian denominations with varying beliefs about evolution but all have Christ as their savior.

 

[Frank Robert]

I can agree, but pretending to know something that is really not known and going as far as teaching this as truth to vulnerable children is not good.

Testing hypotheses and presenting the evidence is not pretending.

Please. I accept that there are denominations who have Christ as their Savior in common. I also understand that there are other religions.
NONE of these other religions make the same claim as I. Muslims for example do not believe in a personal God who indwells believers and who leads them into all truth.

People overwhelming remain with the religion they are born with. We don't need to agree with other religions but we should respect that we are all entitled to our beliefs.

So do you, and I can tell you if you had to do that with the order as seen in the universe and even narrowed down to earth, the seasons, gravity, nature, man, etc. and try and test and repeat your hypothesis of chance having caused it all, what do you imagine as an honest and honorable person that statistical probability would be.

What's Wrong With Creationist Probability?

abcnews.go.com

 

[CrowCross]

Yes I agree.

It must be an awesome feeling to believe one can speak with such authority.

The Bible does not say believe in a 6000 or be damned nor does it claim to be inerrant. I am sure that had I been brought up in a family and church that believed that in 6000 year world, I likely would believe it also but I was not.

No one EVER said you have to believe in a 6,000 ear old earth to be saved.

There are four ways to interpret the bible:

Moral Interpretation​

Literal Interpretation​

Allegorical Interpretation​

Anagogical Interpretation​

I don't disagree..you forgot poetic.

What you fail to realize is that the inspired authors of the bible present Gen as literal.

​

Based on my education and experiences, I lean heavily towards the moral interpretation with the emphasis on how we live is to follow (imitate) Jesus as best we can.

That's part of it....depending upon the book and chapter.

I lean away from the literal because the Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant

There's errors in the bible? (original)

and just as important literalism fosters intolerance towards others who hold different interpretations of the biblical texts. This is evident in the way that many, not all, literalists damn evolution and all those that affirm the science of evolution.

Evolution should be damned as a lie from Satan. It didn't happen.

There are many, some people claim thousands, of Christian denominations with varying beliefs about evolution but all have Christ as their savior.

There are many denominations trying to conform to the world who are flying rainbow flags.

 

[Frank Robert]

No one EVER said you have to believe in a 6,000 ear old earth to be saved.

Then there is no need for agreement. Rejoice!

What you fail to realize is that the inspired authors of the bible present Gen as literal.

Genesis was written for a Jewish tribe. From what I understand is that today's Jews recognize the deeper meaning of the text but don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Evolution should be damned as a lie from Satan. It didn't happen.

You are welcome to your opinion and I to mine.

There are many denominations trying to conform to the world who are flying rainbow flags.

You appear to dislike people who have been discriminated for centuries. You don't need to agree with people fighting for civil rights or not even the cause they are fighting for to be civil about it.

 

[CrowCross]

Then there is no need for agreement. Rejoice!

Then again the false theology containing evo-ism and old earth can be used as part of deception.

Genesis was written for a Jewish tribe. From what I understand is that today's Jews recognize the deeper meaning of the text but don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So, when Paul in 1st Tim 2:13 says ...For Adam was formed first, and then Eve......it didn't really happen according to Genesis?

Do you see the deception you fall into with evo-ism?

 

[Frank Robert]

Then again the false theology containing evo-ism and old earth can be used as part of deception.

Many Christian denominations have learned that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science including evolution.

So, when Paul in 1st Tim 2:13 says ...For Adam was formed first, and then Eve......it didn't really happen according to Genesis?

There is no inherent antagonism between science and Adam and Eve. For example, Dr.Joshua Swamidass who is a MD, Population Geneticist wrote a book The Genealogical Adam and Eve which shows that a traditional reading of Genesis can be consistent with evolutionary science. The book has been reviewed and acclaimed by theologians, evolutionary scientists, and apologists like William Lane Craig. One surprising review appeared in USA Today was by an atheist, Nathan Lents, Professor of Biology, John Jay College.

Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of 'Adam and Eve'

Christians are often taught to reject evolutionary biology. With this research, it is my hope they will attain a greater respect for the discipline.

www.usatoday.com

I expect you disregard what I write and continue to complain about imaginary evils of evolution.

Do you see the deception you fall into with evo-ism?

The only deception is your own self-deception.

 

[CrowCross]

Many Christian denominations have learned that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science including evolution.

That's ashamed.

For example using evo-ism, can the "denominations" that support evo-ism explain the fall of Adam and Eve? You know, something like mankind evolved a sin gene.

There is no inherent antagonism between science and Adam and Eve. For example, Dr.Joshua Swamidass who is a MD, Population Geneticist wrote a book The Genealogical Adam and Eve which shows that a traditional reading of Genesis can be consistent with evolutionary science. The book has been reviewed and acclaimed by theologians, evolutionary scientists, and apologists like William Lane Craig. One surprising review appeared in USA Today was by an atheist, Nathan Lents, Professor of Biology, John Jay College.

Upcoming book leaves scientific possibility for existence of 'Adam and Eve'

Christians are often taught to reject evolutionary biology. With this research, it is my hope they will attain a greater respect for the discipline.

www.usatoday.com

I expect you disregard what I write and continue to complain about imaginary evils of evolution.


The only deception is your own self-deception.

The bible says Eve was the mother of all....evil evo-ism disagrees with the bible.

 

[Frank Robert]

That's ashamed.

For example using evo-ism, can the "denominations" that support evo-ism explain the fall of Adam and Eve? You know, something like mankind evolved a sin gene.

The only evil is in your imagination. The majority of Christians see no conflict.

The bible says Eve was the mother of all....evil evo-ism disagrees with the bible.

I provided a book contain scientific evidence, authored by an evangelical Christian proving that the science of evolution does not deny Adam and Eve. Many people may believe that A&E is fiction but Dr. Swamidass has provided a feasible scientific hypothesis for their existence that can be tested by the math. The book has been been reviewed and acclaimed by theologians, biblical scholars, evolutionary scientists, apologists and even by atheists.

You need to a long look in the mirror and ask yourself what you have contributed beyond your own personal denial and obvious hatred of evolution science. I know I am not telling you anything that your already know.

 

[Manfred]

Testing hypotheses and presenting the evidence is not pretending.

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

So which hypotheses in the THEORY of evolution have been proven?
Why all the "missing links" in the fossil record?

People overwhelming remain with the religion they are born with. We don't need to agree with other religions but we should respect that we are all entitled to our beliefs.

What's Wrong With Creationist Probability?

abcnews.go.com

That is maybe so.
Wide is the path that leads to destruction.

You/they hear the gospel and reject it because it is folly to you/them.
I understand that and also why.

 

[CrowCross]

The only evil is in your imagination. The majority of Christians see no conflict.

I provided a book contain scientific evidence, authored by an evangelical Christian proving that the science of evolution does not deny Adam and Eve. Many people may believe that A&E is fiction but Dr. Swamidass has provided a feasible scientific hypothesis for their existence that can be tested by the math. The book has been been reviewed and acclaimed by theologians, biblical scholars, evolutionary scientists, apologists and even by atheists.

You need to a long look in the mirror and ask yourself what you have contributed beyond your own personal denial and obvious hatred of evolution science. I know I am not telling you anything that your already know.

Adam and Eve were literal historical people. I also used a book and showed you that. That book was the bible. You know the author.