Originally posted by Proper Knob So you accept common descent, is that what you're saying?
Yes.
You can even see it in scripture. God talks to the waters to bring forth life on to the land. When thinking about this, why talk to the waters? It is plain to see that creation is a step by step process using the building blocks from the Big Bang.
You can even see it in scripture. God talks to the waters to bring forth life on to the land. When thinking about this, why talk to the waters? It is plain to see that creation is a step by step process using the building blocks from the Big Bang.
There is a reason man was the final creation.
Do you view evolution as a process which is left to the laws of nature or do you view God as having a hand in the process all the way through?
Some are uncomfortable with the word believe - OK. I'll just change it to 'accept'. For this list, you are considered to accept evolution if you accept common descent and the time needed to evolve the living things of today, given common descent.
Anti-evolution: dasa
RJHinds
FreakyKBH
sonship (this is an educated guess; he supports a literal Noah's ark.)
RBHILL
menace71
robbiecarrobie
galveston75
Originally posted by SwissGambit I'm just curious. I'd like to get a head count of which theists believe in evolution, and which do not. When I say 'believe in evolution', I mean embracing all of it. Millions of years; common descent of all life, etc. People who 'only believe in micro-evolution' will not be considered pro-evolution in my tally, but anti.
I'd like to know, by percenta ...[text shortened]... ducated guess; he supports a literal Noah's ark.)
RBHILL
Originally posted by Proper Knob Do you view evolution as a process which is left to the laws of nature or do you view God as having a hand in the process all the way through?
God had and continues to have his hand in everything. How he operates is a mystery. Anyone that says otherwise is being disingenuous or arrogant.
What I do find laughable, however, is abiogenesis. The entire premise is nonsensical to me.
Originally posted by SwissGambit sonship (this is an educated guess; he supports a literal Noah's ark.)
Pro evolution so far : 35.7%[/b]
Just because one does not reject scientific findings does not mean that they do not take the Bible literally.
I also believe that there was a flood. Was it world wide? I don't know. Did it contain all the animals that exist today? I don't believe it did. It could very well be that the flood wiped out all the known life in the region only. The ark could have then provided them with animal life in the immediate devastated area.
Likewise, the Bible does not say that the earth is only 6000 years old. This is an interpretation. In fact, some rabbinical scholars had come to the conclusion that the earth was much older, and this before science told us otherwise. They came to these conclusions based upon the Hebrew interpretation of the Bible as well as passed down knowledge.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Some are uncomfortable with the word believe - OK. I'll just change it to 'accept'. For this list, you are considered to [b]accept evolution if you accept common descent and the time needed to evolve the living things of today, given common descent.
I think a distinction should be made for what type of evolution is being refereed to, for I have no objection to adaptation but I firmly reject transmutation of one species into another.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I think a distinction should be made for what type of evolution is being refereed to, for I have no objection to adaptation but I firmly reject transmutation of one species into another.
I have questions about that as well. How God does it, I don't know, but what I do believe is that he changes life forms rather than just zapping them into existence.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I think a distinction should be made for what type of evolution is being refereed to, for I have no objection to adaptation but I firmly reject transmutation of one species into another.
Considering the theory that species transmutation died out over 150 years ago I doubt you will find anybody who will disagree with you on that one.
Also a distinction was given, notice the term 'common descent'.
Originally posted by Proper Knob Considering the theory that species transmutation died out over 150 years ago I doubt you will find anybody who will disagree with you on that one.
Also a distinction was given, notice the term 'common descent'.
wow it must have died out with the publication of Darwins book then, published 1859.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie wow it must have died out with the publication of Darwins book then, published 1859.
Correct.
From the wiki -
Transmutation of species or Transformism are terms often used to describe 19th century evolutionary ideas for the altering of one species into another that preceded Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Transmutation of species or Transformism are terms often used to describe 19th century evolutionary ideas for the altering of one species into another that preceded Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Transmutation of species or Transformism are terms often used to describe 19th century evolutionary ideas for the altering of one species into another that preceded Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.
so common decent explains nothing about the relationship between genus, its merely an attempt to explain why there is variation within a genus, I firmly reject it then on the basis of discontinuity of species.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie so common decent explains nothing about the relationship between genus, its merely an attempt to explain why there is variation within a genus, I firmly reject it then on the basis of discontinuity of species.
Common descent is the scientific theory that all life on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
29 Mar '14 00:17
Christian evolutionists here
Back to Top