Replies

fortheDeclaration: "A 'confirmed theory' is science proving something to be true.
In others words, a fact."

Sorry, FRiend, but I'll repeat: by US law you are not authorized to redefine scientific terms, or to declare one or another "meaningless".
So your definitions here are simply false, wrong and misleading.

Natural-science, modern science, does not use words like "prove" or "true".
"Confirmed" covers both of those -- a "confirmed observation" is a "fact", a strongly confirmed hypothesis is a theory.

If you wish to translate science's words into your own religious understandings, that's your right, of course, but you must not pretend that your words have anything to do with real science, because they don't.

fortheDeclaration: "Now, anyone reading your posts can see the scam that modern science uses, redefining terms to mean whatever the science community want them to mean.
No, most Christians do not accept evolution, not those who believe the Bible!"

Sorry, FRiend, but it's you who are scamming and redefining scientific words to suit your own anti-science agenda.
I have merely corrected you, now over and over again, but you still refuse to see the errors in your posts.

And the fact is: a vast majority of Christians belong to denominations who teach what's called "theistic evolutionism", and that's what I've been explaining, however poorly.
Simply stated: evolution is God's Hand at work in Creation.

fortheDeclaration: "As I said, Christians understand there is adaptation within a species, but we also know that something doesn't come from nothing and life from non-life.
So, we accept adaption within a certain limitation, that is, what God has already created."

But your definition of "something coming from nothing" while true to a point, cannot include what is called "complexification", meaning for example, a chemical process where characteristics of the resulting complexity are "something" which were not there before.
Such "complexification" is observed everywhere in chemistry, biology and many other fields (computer science comes to mind).

I'll repeat: by definition -- definitions subject to discussion -- a dividing line separates "complex chemistry" from "simple life".
Bacteria are "life", while viruses are said to be "complex chemistry" along with other organic entities like the prions which cause Mad Cow's Disease.
Exactly where we draw that line is a matter of convention and construct, but as the line moves, so does "life" (something) come out of "chemistry" (nothing).

Is there some reason why you keep posting your nonsense to me?

I don't care what words science uses, we are talking about the real world, the world of reality.

When something is proven, it becomes a fact.

Just because science want to define words doesn't mean it has a right to!

You haven't 'corrected' anything, you just have repeated the same nonsense over and over again.

Real science shows how the real world works, not the world that lives in your imagination.

Real science cannot prove or disprove the origins of the universe or life.

That is a FACT.

So, if someone believes that the origin of the universe and life was by evolution and not creation, they do so by FAITH.

Just like those who believe in a Creator.

Now, stop posting your idiocy to me.

Exactly where we draw that line is a matter of convention and construct, but as the line moves, so does "life" (something) come out of "chemistry" (nothing).

This is why no one can take you guys seriously!

Nothing is NOTHING.

It isn't 'chemistry'.

Look up the word 'nothing' in the dictionary.

So, 'something' can't come from 'nothing' since there is 'nothing' there.

What a fantasy world you guys live in.