A reasonable try, abelcainsbrother, but, in my opinion, no cigar.
abelcainsbrother wrote:Before we go tampering with God's word or doubting parts of it,or claiming this part was just poetry,etc.
Tampering with God's word? That's a loaded phrase. We need to know what God's word is, and in my opinion it really is a collection of different kinds of literature, so it is not tampering with it to understand it in different ways. Indeed, I consider the discussion about the separate creation of people twice, and the sexual abilities of angels, much worse 'tampering' than any scientific interpretation of God's word.
We need to know life evolves first and I'm not convinced we know life evolves seeing that no scientist has ever been able to demonstrate life evolves.
We don't 'know' scientific things; we come up with the best interpretation of the evidence. There has not been enough time to demonstrate speciation to the satisfaction of creationists yet, but given a couple of hundred years I've no doubt there will be demonstration aplenty.
The only thing scientists have demonstrated is that there is variation in reproduction or that life can adapt and one must assume based on this that life evolves by faith.
Yes, although faith is a loaded word. We can see life adapting in small ways, and assume by extrapolation that major speciation will eventually be demonstrated.
So that if we must believe life evolves by faith?Then we should not put evolution on so high of a pedestal to where we doubt parts of God's word.
Good point, but that rather assumes that evolution contradicts God's word. The whole point of this thread is that to evolutionists, evolution affirms and demonstrates God's word, and that a literal reading of the bible distorts and corrupts it.
When believing things by faith,God's word comes first.
Quite so. But a literal reading of the bible is not God's word.
I cannot help it that it is difficult for scientists to demonstrate life evolves before we find ways to doubt parts of God's word, they must.
No, the evidence God has already placed on the earth, coupled to the ability to reason God has placed in our minds, is quite sufficient.
When have you ever seen any scientist demonstrate life evolves? Why is this? Have you ever wondered why you've never seen any evidence in science that demonstrates life evolves?
No. I understand exactly why.
No,it is just preached by scientists or Professor and you have decided to just believe them.
Not at all. I have come to my own conclusions based on the evidence.
It really sticks out to me that we can go back years and watch even young earth creationists debate evolutionists and yet it comes down to who we believe more than evidence from either side.
Correct. Deriving the best explanation one can from the evidence available is the essence of human reason.
This always stuck out to me.I noticed that no evolutionist has ever provided evidence that demonstrates life evolves, and if they had?
Incorrect. Evidence for evolution abounds in countless research papers across different disciplines. From the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' onwards, there has been an ever increasing mountain of evidence confirming evolution, and nothing to suggest it is an incorrect explanation.
They would have won,but they never have.
It's not a battle, but, if the current scientific and theological understanding of the world from an evolutionary view-point is anything to go by, evolution is most obviously the dominant accepted paradigm.
It just always came down to who we believe.It was a tie at best.
I think that's wishful thinking on the part of tiny minority
All we ever really see is both sides trying to polk holes in each others belief without real evidence being presented from either side.
Not at all. Evolutionists present mountains of evidence, which robustly withstands attempts to poke holes it. The problem with creationists is that that have never presented any evidence at all. Evolutionists have nothing to poke holes in!
If there was a winner? It was usually based on which one polked more holes in the other one's position and not because of real evidence.
No. It was because one presented evidence and a rational conclusion to be drawn from it, and the other didn't.
I had to go digging back, but