And Science Says Our Gap Theory Is Bad.....
- Thread starter Born_Again
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"And we should just go with your baseless say-so because..........?"
Because it's not just my "baseless say-so" as I've quoted you many others, which you have conveniently ignored.
I'm saying exactly what I said....you've given no reason to think that including a few more countries in that data set would flip the results from "most evolutionists are theists" to "most evolutionists are atheists".
All you've done is say "But they didn't include these countries, therefore..........something".
Again, you are suggesting adding variables has no influence on outcome.
The data I've posted here before clearly shows that one factor in youth leaving Christianity is the perception that the faith is "hostile to science". Your framing of this issue as "if you accept the reality of evolution, you must be an atheist" only adds to that.
Thanks for admitting that youth are leaving the church because of science. I appreciate the honesty. We'll just have to disagree about whose fault it is.
What in the world are you talking about? :wacko:
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Understand?
Pretending is beneath you. Please stop. You know that we could go to what is a population? You know this leads to micro/macro debate. We will keep this on task.
So you seem to be saying that any scientific explanation for things is a necessary condition for atheism. Plate tectonics, erosion, ionic bonding, evolution....all of those are natural process that explain things, and there's nothing fundamentally different about evolution in that regard. It's just as naturalistic as erosion, and is taught as such.
Nice job CJ. You've set the stage to where all of science is now anti-Christian. :unsure:
Straw man fallacy much? Or just when necessary?
When you get anywhere near what I actually believe, let us know.
I will absolutely cede this point to hear your beliefs. So, the universe, life, is not random? If not random who/what drives the change in a nonrandom way? Survival, reproduction is still random when acting on random variations. ID makes perfect sense, you need not side with Behe on this just give us your version of intelligent design. Do you not discount Genesis as unscientific but accept Matthew as fact? Please enlighten us.
Because it's not just my "baseless say-so" as I've quoted you many others, which you have conveniently ignored.
I'm saying exactly what I said....you've given no reason to think that including a few more countries in that data set would flip the results from "most evolutionists are theists" to "most evolutionists are atheists".
All you've done is say "But they didn't include these countries, therefore..........something".
Again, you are suggesting adding variables has no influence on outcome.
The data I've posted here before clearly shows that one factor in youth leaving Christianity is the perception that the faith is "hostile to science". Your framing of this issue as "if you accept the reality of evolution, you must be an atheist" only adds to that.
Thanks for admitting that youth are leaving the church because of science. I appreciate the honesty. We'll just have to disagree about whose fault it is.
What in the world are you talking about? :wacko:
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time. Understand?
Pretending is beneath you. Please stop. You know that we could go to what is a population? You know this leads to micro/macro debate. We will keep this on task.
So you seem to be saying that any scientific explanation for things is a necessary condition for atheism. Plate tectonics, erosion, ionic bonding, evolution....all of those are natural process that explain things, and there's nothing fundamentally different about evolution in that regard. It's just as naturalistic as erosion, and is taught as such.
Nice job CJ. You've set the stage to where all of science is now anti-Christian. :unsure:
Straw man fallacy much? Or just when necessary?
When you get anywhere near what I actually believe, let us know.
I will absolutely cede this point to hear your beliefs. So, the universe, life, is not random? If not random who/what drives the change in a nonrandom way? Survival, reproduction is still random when acting on random variations. ID makes perfect sense, you need not side with Behe on this just give us your version of intelligent design. Do you not discount Genesis as unscientific but accept Matthew as fact? Please enlighten us.
I have seen it....a few times. Do you have a specific case in mind?
Yes, I'm sure you were forwarded the talking points concerning each individual in the movie and are well prepared for a further hatchet job. I'm just not interested.
Yes, I'm sure you were forwarded the talking points concerning each individual in the movie and are well prepared for a further hatchet job. I'm just not interested.
You quoted one biologist and a German who died about 100 years ago. And I didn't ignore them, I asked what you think those quotes demonstrate, and you didn't answer.ChristianJuggarnaut said:
But it's fascinating to see you hold up Haeckel and Provine and demand everyone bow down to the authority of their statements, while at the same time waving away Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and the entire population of Catholics. Do you know what confirmation bias is? You should learn, because right now you're the poster child for it.
I never said that at all. I'll ask again....why do you seem to think that including countries like Brazil and Argentina will flip the conclusion from "most evoultionists are theists" to "most evolutionists are atheists"?
If we look at the data on religious belief in Brazil, we see that at most, 7% of the population is atheist (being generous, because not all non-religious people are atheist). Further, the majority of Brazilians are theistic evolutionists. Now please explain to me how including the population of Brazil in the Miller et al. analysis will flip the conclusion to "most evolutionists are atheists".
For Argentina, the estimate is about 1% atheist. Simple math tells us that in order for your position to be true (including these countries in the Miller et al. analysis will change the outcome to "most evolutionists are atheists", a couple of things have to be true. First, all the atheists in those countries have to be "evolutionists", and second, there has to be enough of them to overcome the number of theistic "evolutionists" in the US, Europe, and Japan.
Looking at the numbers I linked to for Brazil and Argentina, are you really saying that's what you think? Really?
If this is the best response you can muster, I'll just leave it alone.
Um.....ok...... :wacko:
Then help me out here. What standard are you applying to evolution to conclude it is atheistic, that if you also applied it to plate tectonics wouldn't make it atheistic?
Nope, not random. The laws of physics make sure of that. God created a universe that actually works without the need for Him to keep tinkering with it.
Um.......huh? :blink: You don't know that natural selection, by its very definition, is non-random? I mean.....that's the whole point of the "selection" part!
Well you don't side with Behe either (he accepts the reality of universal common ancestry, including between humans and other primates). And no, Genesis was not written as a scientific paper, so there's no reason to interpret it as such.
Yeah, that was a pretty bad movie. Creationists should be more careful making claims about cases where there is actual documentation of what really happened. And relevant to this thread, did you know that while going around promoting the movie, Ben Stein said on TV that "science leads you to killing people"? Pretty sad IMO.
