im a christian. but there are so many facts behind evolutionism its hard not to see reason. but I just have to admit im in a family that hardly ever goes to church. But id like to not rack my brain over it and live my life.
im a christian. but there are so many facts behind evolutionism its hard not to see reason.
See told you there were Christians on here who accept evolution. BTW evolution isn't an -ism. Belief doesn't really play a role, it more accurate to say we accept it rather then believe in it.
Trying not to talk about the moment of creation is one trick.
Fine, let us return to the Big Bang.
Honestly I don't think it's a good idea to let things get sidetracked to another theory.
If they want to compare creationism to evolution then let us compare the two not creationism to another theory.
Who said anything about comparing? There's no VS sign in the title. It's OR. You could talk about why you believe in Creationism, OR you could talk about why you believe in Evolutionism. Maybe you believe in both, so you could talk about that. Maybe you believe in neither, so you could talk about that too. So there tricksies are just to prevent people talking about Creationism because then we'd start talking about GOD which, as we know, is just a four-letter word to them.
*gollum voice* "IT BURNS IT FREEZES, NASTY CREATIONISTS TWISTED IT, TAKES IT OFF!"
BTW - "evolutionism" IS IN THE DICTIONARY. That's the AUTHORITY on terms. Telling us we can't use what's in the dictionary is ridiculous and just your own false opinion. The general public can only be believe or not believe, which makes it an -ism. And about 15% of scientists already say they don't believe in it, with the majority of scientists being theistic evolutionists. How did a scientist conclude God exists if science doesn't test that? It's because the human mind is not limited by the scientific method, it can hold onto ideas based on personal experience, and a majority of scientists find this method to be just as valid as the scientific method.
You know what I love about you noobsfordummies? You say something and then don't prove it. In fact you have proved nothing except your own ignorance. Meanwhile you insist that we prove evolution. So I have a challenge for you, and anyone else who is a creationist. Without using the bible prove to those who support evolution the validity of creation.
Without using the bible prove to those who support evolution the validity of creation.
This is just off the top of my head.... A rule of science is that everything finite must be caused by something else. By your own views, there is nothing that is infinite that has been proven. But if we use your logic, we just go in an endless circle of finite things causing other finite things. But there had to have been something infinite that caused this process to set in motion. God.
BTW - "evolutionism" IS IN THE DICTIONARY. That's the AUTHORITY on terms. Telling us we can't use what's in the dictionary is ridiculous and just your own false opinion. The general public can only be believe or not believe, which makes it an -ism. And about 15% of scientists already say they don't believe in it, with the majority of scientists being theistic evolutionists. How did a scientist conclude God exists if science doesn't test that? It's because the human mind is not limited by the scientific method, it can hold onto ideas based on personal experience, and a majority of scientists find this method to be just as valid as the scientific method.
It is a term coined by Creationist to attempt to lower evolution to there level. I thought we went over it.
Second, can you give us the link, and tell us what "scientist" include? Does it include hobbies, teachers, priests?
This is just off the top of my head.... A rule of science is that everything finite must be caused by something else. By your own views, there is nothing that is infinite that has been proven. But if we use your logic, we just go in an endless circle of finite things causing other finite things. But there had to have been something infinite that caused this process to set in motion. God.
Last I checked, that is not a law of science. Can you think of an ACTUAL law please?
But if we use your logic, we just go in an endless circle of finite things causing other finite things. But there had to have been something infinite that caused this process to set in motion. God.
Why would something infinite cause the ball to roll? Something finite, such as matter, would do just as easily. You see there is finitey in all things, but nature abhors a void and thus fills it.
Because finite things have to have a cause, but infinite things do not. So if everything is finite, then we go in endless circles because, using this logic, there can't have been a start, as that would have had to have been caused by something else.
Although God created (caused) us to exist, but only as finite beings (which, being finite, need the cause for the existence, while God as causa sui caused and is causing Himself to exist)
^Rene Descartes
He's basically saying finite things need a cause and infinite things don't.
Who said anything about comparing? There's no VS sign in the title. It's OR. You could talk about why you believe in Creationism, OR you could talk about why you believe in Evolutionism. Maybe you believe in both, so you could talk about that. Maybe you believe in neither, so you could talk about that too. So there tricksies are just to prevent people talking about Creationism because then we'd start talking about GOD which, as we know, is just a four-letter word to them.
Comparing the two is what we've done from the start.
"evolutionism" IS IN THE DICTIONARY. That's the AUTHORITY on terms. Telling us we can't use what's in the dictionary is ridiculous and just your own false opinion.
AS I said belief has no use in in a theory as such the term is inaccurate.
The general public can only be believe or not believe, which makes it an -ism.
We can evaluate the evidence and accept or deny the theory just as anyone else can.
And about 15% of scientists already say they don't believe in it, with the majority of scientists being theistic evolutionists.
Completely irrelevant. Belief doesn't change the evidence.
How did a scientist conclude God exists if science doesn't test that? It's because the human mind is not limited by the scientific method, it can hold onto ideas based on personal experience, and a majority of scientists find this method to be just as valid as the scientific method.
Also irrelevant to a scientific theory.
And in case you didn't get the hint the first nth times weather there is belief in something or not holds no baring on a scientific theory. As such we either accept a theory based on evaluation of the evidence or not. It's like saying accepts the theory of gravity is gravitism. Also using the term only hurts your credibility since it makes you look like you don't know what a scientific theory is.
According to science, the Big Bang created matter and space/time. The Big Crunch would get rid of it. Therefore, it is finite.
The big bang would have created it, but the big crunch wouldn't end it, just put it in a bite size package. Then another big bang would happen, expanding it again. No end.
