(April 7, 2016 at 10:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:When making scientific claims, they need to be verifiable. When making statements of faith, they do not because they don't fit the scientific model and are not subject to the same rigorous proofs required by science. I am quite comfortable having a scientific viewpoint on certain matters and at the same time, having faith in God.(April 6, 2016 at 10:28 pm)AJW333 Wrote: Christianity is not science. At the end of the day it is a matter of faith and reason. My reason to believe is multifaceted but I regard the Scripture as being accurate because of its ability to reliably predict the future.
Concerning evolution, I don't regard it as being scientific. If you called it a faith, that would make more sense to me. One thing I would like to know is, what are the stages of the evolution of humans? Apart from neanderthals, what was the progenitor to humans? And what was the progenitor to that?
So the type of evidence that you require to accept the scripture as reliable is different than the kind of evidence you require to accept the theory of evolution as reliable? Again...you don't see a major contradiction here? Which type of evidence do you employ when evaluating other supernatural claims like say...ghosts, or poltergeists? Science? Or the other?
Either way, as Rob mentioned somewhere, attempting (and failing) to poke holes in evolutionary science is not positive evidence for a designer. It never will be.
One of the reasons I discount evolution is the fact that DNA has a great many constraints against errors being retained and therefore limits the chances that one organism could morph into a completely new organism. I would very much appreciate an evolutionary timeline for human beings, from now, back 5 stages to whatever it is we are supposed to have evolved from. Can you give me that?
