See, not only are you changing the subject but you are comparing your basic apples and oranges. Comparing a no-evidence miracle to a well evidenced theory just does not work. The VC and the R would be your basic miracles, or a sort to leave no trace and need no mechanism. There is no science of any sort, nor logic nor anything to be applied but faith. My father in law is a PhD geologist who believes in god. I admire and respect him, tho I dont happen to believe as he does. Flood / ToE is not about belief or faith. its science. Educated people know that. The flood is a hypothesis. it is long since disproved. A theory is based on data. If someone finds contrary data, then the theory is disproved. IF there'd been a flood, and if ToE were wrong, the evidence would be in vast abundance everywhere. As it is, the evidence for them is all about. Still, ToE is theory; potentially it could be disproved. Educated Christians know that. Uneducated ones think it has been disproved. But nobody can produce datum point one to show that it is disproved. That is why I said "zero success". Deal with that, if you can, not some side issue or false comparison.
I'm confused about what you're trying to say. The theory of evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis. That had nothing to do with heathens trying to disprove God. It's enlightened scientific thinking bumping into superstitious beliefs.
Considering that the educated Christians dont have a problem with science, the use of the word "heathen" here is very pejorative, and most inappropriate. Especially for anyone who is gonna get all sensitive about "name calling".
No, of course not. But only one side has any facts to work with. That leaves either falsehoods or emotion for the other side to work with. Which do you think is better and more sure guide?
Now wait a second! If evolution has nothing to with with "molecules to man" then it doesn't dispute the God of Genesis at all!
Science disproves the idea that the "god" who did genesis, adam and eve, flood is real. Unless you get all metaphorical, something the fundamentalists cant abide. Now it may be that there is a god, and that Christians even got some of it right about that god. They ought tho, Id think, be careful making false claims about a god they say they respect.
It certainly does since the theory implies that man wasn't created from dust, nor in his current form.
How can Fundies critisize folks who believe in Evolution, when Fundies refuse to actually learn about the actual theory?
There are few on the side of Evolution that are emotionally attached to the actual theory...most will however defend the science behind it, as they feel insulted when obvious truth and fact are ignored. On the religious/God/Creation side however....many do as you have, and claim they are being attacked when their God is shown to be unlikely. If evolution were replaced next week by something with even more evidence to support it, I would dismiss TOE having found something new and more likely to be true. Few of the faith could say that, and still be of the faith.
And that's why unbelievers use it to disprove God. Thanks for helping me out on this one. On what day did God create man, according to Genesis?
I don't refuse to learn. That's not true at all. I've learned a lot in the last couple of months or more.
and yet you don't understand the basics of Evolution. I have a degree in Geography, and even I easily understand this.
It has nothing to do with unbelievers. Again, it is a consequence of the theory itself. Christians use it to adjust their viewpoints to something more enlightened. It doesn't disprove "God", it disproves one interpretation of him written by ignorant and archaic people. The sixth day of creation. Why is this relevant?
It can be a bit hard to tell when you do not in any way acknowledge it when some of your basic mistakes are corrected for you. Im glad tho that you intend to learn. Where do you go for info on something like evolution of the flood? Is it by any chance creationist sites?
Not only do I understand the basics, I also understand the criticisms of the theory, which makes me far more informed than anyone who has never bothered to objectively consider the criticisms.
Its not about unbelievers or disproving god. surely you understand that? Science went along finding out about things. Christian, Hindu, Taoist, athiest scienctists. They found out that certain things said about "god" are not true. That is not setting out to disprove god, just to find out about things. God cant be disproved, just some foolish ideas about said god.
Oh really. Some of us who understand a lot more than be basics dont see it that way at all. If you do better than someone who never thinks at all, thats good. Id have to see it demonstrated that you understand the criticisms, because if you do, you'd know that nobody has ever come up with a valid one. Lets hear a criticism that we cant objectively answer.
Being one who has "Objectively" studied evolution for decades....I find this entire statement unlikely.
