Sentences with phrase «n't accept evolution»

If you can accept an old earth their should be no reason that you can't accept evolution.

Related to the litmus test comments — How about this litmus test: if you don't accept evolution as the only rational explanation for the diversity of life on Earth you can not run for office.

Because plenty of respectable people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don't accept evolution, and that somehow validates his opinion.

No wonder you don't accept evolution.

You don't accept evolution, but you never mention the alterntive with any details of how it works.

@Hez - according to a recent Gallup poll, 42 % of Americans do indeed believe the young earth theory, and do not accept either evolution or that the earth is older than 10,000 years.

I personally do not accept evolution, but those Christians who do believe in evolution most often believe in something called «Theistic Evolution» which is where God was the originator of the evolutionary process.

There is Progressive Creationism, which does not accept evolution.

I know there are many scientists, Christian and non-Christian, who do not accept evolution as fact.

You said, «We scientists do not accept Evolution as truth yet.»

Many scientists do not accept evolution, evolution is a «theory in crisis» and we should «teach the controversy.»

In an $ 11 billion game industry dominated by dull and bloody «first - person shooters» — not to mention a country where five out of 10 people do not accept evolution — a blockbuster game like Spore that communicates science to the public is sorely needed.

We will now get letters from various disgruntled listeners who contend that they are very well educated because they hold some degree from some renowned university and yet they still do not accept evolution.

Second, accepting or not accepting evolution doesn't result in the sincere promise of the confiscation of trillion $ of tax dollars.

Not exact matches

Difference: atheists that accept evolution, or the theory that all life came from a common ancestor, are more often than not willing to discount that acceptance upon evidence to the contrary.

you can not prove a negative look it up... also you accept that evolution is legit... why because it has evidence... the sky fairy has none but you want to believe it... that does not make it real.

If evolution could be clearly and rationally «proved» wouldn't everyone accept it without question?

There are even studies with pre-verbal children (haven't been socialized to religion yet) and other but non-human social animals that show that morality, if you accept that a sense of fairness and preferring «nice» over the opposite are proto - morals, then indeed it is evolution that makes it so.

That is why some people of religious faith do not accept the theory of evolution.

Atheism is not in any way dependent upon accepting evolution.

DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation «your mind is too small to understand the greatness of science» or «evolution moves in mysterious ways» when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.

It is typically fundamentalist sects that do not accept things like evolution, modern medicine, etc..

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Evolution rocks on whether you accept it or not.

The church USED to shun evolution, however, these are all things now accepted in most churches --(among many other transitions that I haven't named here) because to refuse to adapt to a changing society is asinine and detrimental to the growth of the church.

They accept the either / or of evolution and creation, and they not only accept but insist on the thesis that evolutionary teaching logically and necessarily leads to naturalism, materialism, reductionism, positivism, secularism, atheism and humanism.

Evolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with GEvolution and Creation Dear Fr Editor, Evangelical Creationists, I believe, can not accept the theory of evolution because it appears to conflict with Gevolution because it appears to conflict with Genesis 1.

I got called into the pastor's office once because a «brother» in a small group I was in reported to him that I was not qualified to work in a divorce recovery ministry because I accepted evolution!?

Unfortunately, a lot of young evangelicals grew up with the assumption that Christianity and evolution can not mix, that we have to choose between our faith in Jesus and accepted science.

Now, the secularists, naturalistic evolutionists and Marxists do accept the evolution of reason, but I am afraid they do not know how to look for the right phenomenon which points to the direction reason is being transformed.

We concede that not all who doubt the existence of a personal God do so because they accept the theory of evolution, whether the word be restricted to biology or enlarged to its cosmic significance, but we do say, and from experience know, that most modern agnosticism is bound up with those non-theistic philosophies of evolution that stream off from Hegel as their modern fountain - head.

None of that belief was ever predicated on a specific interpretation of Genesis with respect to scientific details, and as such, accepting evolution as a mechanism by which God creates did not alter those beliefs.

But if we accept time's evolution, then it is not yet fully itself; it lacks itself.

If the traditional formulations of God show him to be the Perfect Good, Absolute Truth and Supreme Being, since goodness, truth and being are positive values, then there should not be too great a difficulty in accepting a formulation of God's eternity as Absolute or Perfect Time, since time is now revealed to us as positive, thanks to the discovery of evolution.

I didn't know that you could be a Christian and accept evolution.

science is not everything, the problem is when the critical and objective philosophy of science is accepted as absolute in reality.God is beyond logic at this point of our consciousness, The process of gods will manfistation is evolution which accepts all variables in the process, the input could be not what scienctists wants.Thats why faith or religion is part of reality.

Reading some of the ignorant comments on here about science does make it hard to accept evolution, because so many comments here don't evidence evolution.

The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution can not be proven so they are not scientifically proven laws and are accepted on faith as true by some.

Bill is not saying that if you reject evolution you are scientifically illiterate (I will say that though), he said that if you accept Creationism you are scientifically illiterate (really can't be denied).

To accept evolution is asking a Christian to not only remove God from the picture but is asking them to deny the power of God.

Strange that you believe in the evolution of Animals and Mankind but do not want to accept the Evilution of Religions... and that's why we remained separated becoming more divided... with each others and among our selves growing in to too many branches every generation evolves...?!

Given that the scientific method can not reject or even address the relationship between the supernatural and accepted evolution theory the riggers of scientism demand an unfounded belief which discredits the core of atheism.

I do not «believe» in evolution, I accept it as fact.

Evolution has not been «falsed» — it is supported and accept by all who understand it, and only denied by those who don't.

Unfortunately the religion that i follow the basis of makes everyone think that I am not open to the concept that I can be wrong, My religion says that i shouldn't believe in evolution but I do, My religion says that I shouldn't accept gay's, but I do, and my religion says I shouldn't have sex before marriage, but I do.

Many or all of these hypnosis / problems that you mentioned here and in other posts as objections to flood and / or evolutionism (such as Coconino Sandstone) are not new and are addressed in sites like creation.com Finally, because you mentioned Christians who accepted evolution, how about some atheists who oppose Darwin's evolutionism such as Nietzsche or, more recently, Jerry Fodor and Piattelli - Palmarini

btw Did you know that the Catholic church accepts evolution; so you don't have to make yourself look quite so ridiculous.

If Chad and others argue that naturalistic evolution must be dismissed because we don't know exactly what happened with gene mutation and transmission frequencies during particular periods of rapid change, then how can we accept a replacement argument in which we don't even know what happens at all?

It seems to me that writers like Peter Enns are saying that I should not forsake the Bible but that I should accept evolution or it's inferred that I should allow for its plausibility..

If you believe that people who accept evolution, love homosexuals, and vote democrat can not be true Christians, you might be a legalist.