Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"Those who support evolution, never include how the universe took shape into evolution..."
Contrary to the evolutionists I have seen, which was why I posted the link.
Well, we have been startled since before the July 4th celebrations...fireworks for personal use are legal here...and they start selling them a few days before the 4th, and there is a time frame during which time they can be set off...but the kids are still setting off some, which they held back from the holiday...we never know when something will go off...
And since we live near the Indian Reservations, there is a endless suppy of firecrackers, M-80s and quarter sticks of dynamite...Illegal stuff, mind you, but they set it off nonetheless...
And of course, I live near Ft. Lewis, so we have to put up with all the artillery shelling practice..they always post in the papers, when artillery shelling will begin and end, but we always forget, and when it starts its quite a shock...
Evolution applies integration of science and related studies.
I will ask you again.
How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
What does the Bible say?
Its true, that many who support evolution, also have 'opinions' on how the universe began...but that is not included in a discussion of evolution...unless a creationist insists on it...evolution discusses 'living' entities, not the earth, nor the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor anything else in the sky...
You have obviously confused the beginning of the physical universe(the sun, the moon, the stars, etc), with 'living' beings...no matter how much you want to insist that the 'how', of in what manner, the physical universe came to be, to be included in the discussion of the evolution of living beings, they are two separate and distinct areas of study...
Oh, for goodness sake, he was 20-30 yrs old, according to many creationists I have talked to...(just how they claim to know this is a mystery to me, since they were not there to view Adam)
Now if God could create a man to appear to be 20-30 yrs old, 1/2 second after he was created, God could also create dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago, but make them appear to be much older(millions of years old), in much the same manner as he created Adam...
Is this the gist of the question, and expected answer?
Here, I was gloating at having Atilla the Hun in my family, but a demigod - you win!
It is a part of evolution theory and you disagree. Not too surprising. Do you understand what properties lead to the evolution you understand it to be? It appears you do not recognize the importance of the theory's scientific entire chain..
Son, I have been plying the roads of biology for more years than you are old (probably) and I know thousands of biologiasts of assorted stripes. I know of none that includes the origin of the universe in their view of the theory of evolution. I don't know what circles you travel in, but I'd get out a little more.
What in the heck are you talking about ...the formation of the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, is now part of the theory of evolution?....
You are the one who fails to understand...
So, like you have deemed yourself competent to determine who and who is not a true 'Christian', as you did earlier on this thread, you now have decided who does and who does not 'really' understand the evolution...
Quite amazing...
Great. I have been in biology too. I beg to differ that said communities do not make such claims. It is called "atheism".
Maybe you are too old to see cearly.
*Sarcasm*
If you'd like, I'll take a stab.
Adam and Even is an allegorical story.
There never was an Adam, so his age after "creation" is meaningless. But I believe AAMM gave the answer you wanted. Nonetheless your point has no effect on Carolina Guitarman's original point. A god that would trick and purposely fool his worshippers concerning the age of the universe, the age of the Earth and the fossil record, is more than a little wanting.
Maybe you fail to read what was written. I make no claim as to what makes a person Christian -- I make claim to the population/religion/politics break-down of the thought process associated with each.
To you, perhaps. To the faculty where I attended grad school, where part of my study was evolution, fossil man, human osteology, etc., it was not the case. They did not include cosmology and astronomy and the abiogenesis parts of biology in my studies.
Now, this may be a disappointment to you and other creationists, because you seem so sure that evolutions are all trained in these fields, but that we are just lying to you and covering up when we claim otherwise.
You know, one of the problems we have in discussing these matters with you is that so few of you have studied these fields of science. Many of you, perhaps, are in computer related fields. mathematics, or engineering, but so few of you are in the biological, paleontological, and related sciences which deal directly with evolution. As a result, many of you are unaware of the actual course of study which is currently taught.
Try searching online for some college catalogues. I would be very surprised to see astronomy or cosmology in many of the biological or evolutionary science curricula.
Here you go, one of the first definitions I web-searched,
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evoldef.htm
And you still make a judgement...which holds true for your particular beliefs, and nothing more...
For your enjoyment,
"Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe.
Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter.
Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.
Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12)."
First, that isn't the doctrine as I understand it. Second, unless you're maintaining that some human ancestor species was in a state of grace, you can't speak of man having a "fallen nature."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.