christians always talk of holes in evolution science as if they are knowledgeable?
451517
My dads a christian minister, and he believes in evolution - he says that the creation story in the bible is like a parable, but in acutal fact it took much much longer than 7 days to create everything, and evolution is part of god's plan - it's how he created everything.  He says that evolution cannot be agrued with, as there are no holes in the 'theory' - it is a fact, not a theory,  so the only sensible way to look at the creation story is as a parable.
466250
Christians suppose themselves to be so humble, but they are confident to tell you exactly what the second most powerful supernatural being, who wants to trick us, wouldn't do.  You all ought to say "I don't know."  \n\nI think the existance of dinosaurs definitely threatens the veracity of Genesis, and the supposed 6000 year age of Earth.
1081289
People like you give the rest of christianity a bad name. If you don't want to get an education, why don't you just stop telling others what to believe. Evolution is real, live with it. Sticking your fingers in your ears, and humming isn't going to make the truth go away. its just going to make people like you look like morons.\nGod would not be proud of that kind of  juvenile nonsense.
173278
Wait a minute people! Let's be honest with Pastor. \n\nOf course evolution, and the rest of science, requires a kind of "faith." In fact it requires two inter-related "faiths," or constructs not subject to further analysis.\n\nThe most rudimentary one is rooted in the concepts of logic. Or, put another way, scientists "assume" certain elementary building blocks of logic, for example axioms. They also have a qualified "faith" in the scientific method.\n\nThere is a  difference between this "faith" and what the asker is referring to as "religion." Scientists require predictable, reproducible results from their theories. Luckily for religious & non-relgious folks alike, scientists are NOT faithful to the particulars of a theory. In fact, when empirics call for it, a whole theory can be discarded by the its very authors. It has a self-correcting dynamic - BECAUSE IT DAMN WELL HAS TO WORK IN THIS WORLD. \n\nThat last element is inimical to most religious dogma. That "faith" requires a vast array of perpetual and unchanging tenets. It even provides for the logically impossible by positing forces necessarily beyond the reach of reason. \n\nThis gives that "faith" a great advantage over science. It is impervious to any force that pretends to question it.
398232
They cahnt answer Jim Darwin with any form of Logic,\nTry as they may, to argue they must resort to mahgic.\n\nBut that can't work, cause they then make no sense,\nSo they HAVE to resort to ad-homonym for Just recompense.\n\nTheir Jesus has told them to "Turn the other Cheek,"\nBut, when one of Jim's missives they click, and then peek,\n\nThe frusturation level, then hits it's peak ..\nand AWAY from their Jesus they tiptoe and sneak.\n\nBEHIND our dear old Jim, they gather like flys\nand they Curse and Complain that what he writes is all LIES!
1103050
No.\n\nBut I think its fair to say that Christianity is incompatible with a believe in evolution.\n\nNot that you are an idiot just that the real Christian bigots won't accept you.\n\n10 dangers of theistic evolution\nby Werner Gitt\n\nThe atheistic formula for evolution is:\n\nEvolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.\n\nIn the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:\n\nTheistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.\n\nIn this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1\n\nDanger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God\nThe Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).\n\nTheistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)\n\nDanger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps\nThe Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).\n\nHowever, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2\n\nDanger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings \nThe entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:\n\nBiological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form. \nIn the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11). \nIn the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5). \nNowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report. \nThe doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.\n\nDanger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God \nThe Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).\n\nHowever, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, w
540220
Most Christians not only believe the dinosaurs existed, but make fine scientists as well.
2418
no one can disprove evolution, only ignorant christians think that evolution didn't occur
733225
Science/evolution is how.\nReligion/God is why.
346034
There are certainly some who CLAIM to be Christians and believe that nonsense about Adam and Eve being nothing more than a myth. And I would concede that a few people who really ARE Cristians believe it, but only because they are uneducated in the Bible, and/or have swallowed a lot of lies about the (so-called) science behind the evolutionary myth.\nhttp://www.drdino.com
1112493
The answers you're getting really crack me up.\nThe level of ignorance displayed about religion and science here is laughable.\nBiologists (as in the serious professionals) explain the fact of evolution with the theory of Natural Selection.  This is not a cosmological theory; it merely attempts to explain the observable world around us.  The theory is completely silent on the origins of life.  Science is patently ignorant of the supernatural (by definition).  Religion, by definition requires faith in a higher order that is outside the physical world that science is studying.\nIf Faith can't withstand science then there is something lacking in the faith.  Never try to explain God with science (it makes god testy).  Likewise, do not deny science with religion (that's just freakishly fundamentalist).\nThanks for the entertainment.
287120
Try reading Dawkins: "The blind Watchmaker".  It's a very good appreciation of the current state of evolutionary theory.\n\nIt may be that there are some inconsistencies in the theory, but the main mechanisms and proofs are well understood and accepted by most scientists.\n\nCertainly the principles are such that they should be taught in schools to children.\n\nWe shouldn't get confused between matters of faith and scientific fact.  At one time the catholic Church improsoned Gallileo for suggesting that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe.
213866
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi
700338
I doubt it. There is a long tradition of Christian intellectualism (just ask the Jesuits). Read contemporary theological commentators like Spong and Borg and try to suggest that they're in possession of low IQs. Personally, I'm religious and hold a doctorate, something not generally awarded to idiots. Of course, I also know some very intelligent atheists...as well as a few prize-winning morons of that persusion. There are both bright and ignorant people from both camps, believing and non-believing.
687217
I love to study evolution and I believe entirely in it, even though I am completing my first year of Seminary.  You can have faith in both, after all something had to start it all, and the evolution of man is fascinating, to think we evolved to be at the top and yet we have no special defenses, no sharp teeth, nor claws, we're one of the slowest mammals, and, our children take longer to mature than any other animal on the planet, something to think about, I also believe in life out there, not UFOs, but life on a planet.  Bible Thumpers, are people who take the Bible so seriously that it makes them sin
72549
I too am shocked at the amount of misunderstanding and especially the amount of animosity. I know many esteemed scientists (including anthropologists and geologists) that have no problem being religious and believing in evolution. If you search the internet you will find many websites giving completely non-factual descriptions of how istopic dating works and using the small amount of uncertainty to claim it refutes all sorts of science. I have even seen attempts at disproving the sedimentary record of the Grand Canyon using this. Never mind that these self-described experts have no qualifications to evaluate these things. In my opinion they are motivated by greed and not altruism. Debunking science seems to have become a cottage industry for what I consider pseudo-religious crackpots. \n\nI think the source is a recent trend as I don't remember this hostility in the 1970's or 1980's. There are now television programs that are done professionally and broadcast daily (TBS) that try to refute all sorts of science using PhD's of theology to describe why carbon dating doesn't work, and even to refute things like dinosaur trace fossils by citing the rate of diagenesis in carbonate rocks. There is a constant problem in Texas where the creationists try to remove and destroy fossils whenever a new location is found. \n\nThe mainstream media doesn't help because the reporters and editors appear to be poorly educated in science. I recently watched a CBS Sunday Morning news piece comparing evolution and intelligent design and to my horror they constantly referred to both as scientific theory- effectively equating them as equal in status to millions of viewers. They hardly even mentioned that ID is not science and that it will never qualify as scientific theory. \n\nThere seem to be so many people who never learned the scientific definition of a theory that it becomes easy to confuse the public by implying that anything labeled as a theory is only a conjecture, and I think with this weakness that far too many people decide evolution can be dismissed as unreliable and unproven. I almost wish science would create a new terminology to replace the word 'theory' in order to clear up this semantic confusion. \n\nI have been very impressed by the magnitude of this problem by watching Yahoo Answers. As a former science teacher I am very disappointed that at least part of it seems to come from many young participants. I had hoped they were getting a better education in science, and at the very least had learned better reasoning skills.
378291
"How did you get to be so knowledgeable?"\n\n\nPS Ricky - are you assuming something else (and tinged with Christianity) about this hypothetical omniscient being?