Why can theists not accept Evolution
Ialso accept that this is the seventh day...but it's almost the eigth. I stand upon the division within, and have chained the dragon. The Holy Grail is cool. Even cooler than evolution!
We already have created completely new organisms. but can we plant a single cell, designed to divide, and then transform into every form of life on the planet, and then, having done so, find a suitable planet for the implantation, and then, having acheived that, make sure that our own species would arise to become master of that world? It's possible.
Close enough. at least you didn't slam the door!
Your 'humility' is duly noted.
Um no, because if one accepts that they personally dont know 'everything' or even close(which I do) that does not automatically mean the next guy (whoeever it is ) knows more or has the key to some magical mystery.
We are all chains in a link Some weak, some strong.many greek philosophers were geniuses but what they believed was still wrong....such as the sphere theory
You may first want to learn something about evolution before waiting to see if one species "suddenly" emerges from another.
As usual friend, you read into what I said.....
Happy to see you're still the same old you. Consistant as ever! How are things?I was at the hospital all day watching as a woman gave birth to an entirely new species.
- Yes I heard about that, Batboy's a father now right?
Keep talking about your imaginary evolution.
The worlds leading atheist admits there is no plausible beginning to reproducing cells or dna coding in your theory.
Irreducible complexity has broken your theory down to nothing short of a cartoon dreamed up by someone that stated himself it would break down if we found cells to be complex.
You want to tell me how great your science is?
Riddle me this hot shot..
Who PROGRAMMED atoms and infused INFORMATION that's organized and STRUCTURED into molecules to work SYSTEMATICALLY?
Where does information come from?
Intelligence..
You think evolution happens with fast rate reproduction going on?
Think again. I've been seeing the same flies my great grandfather seen in his day and i bet more of them have reproduced than there are stars in the universe since the 1920's...
You people are grasping at straws and have no hope. Intelligence from nothing..
Why don't you try to convince everyone that you 'evolved' your education too and the knowledge in your head..
SURE... no one had to WORK to GAIN KNOWLEDGE to PRODUCE INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS either did they?
You people are a joke.. lol
You study the systems set in place before you got here and then tell everyone they were some accident and organized structure is generated through luck.
Go tell an engineer that spiffy. Put some money down that he doesn't laugh at you too?
Keep making false statements.
you only wish
we can tell you know your stuff. look at all that knowledge you laid out..Oh, I see now. Believers are free to make the most outrageous, irrational, nonsensical and ridiculously laughable claims about the world around us and the expectation is others are supposed to provide knowledge that would refute such magical thinking?
That's like trying to explain Napoleon is dead to someone who fanatically believes they are Napoleon.
::ahem::
AKA Winston,
That is a bunch of illogical jibberish. Cite the references.
[if you didn't fabricate it all then and there that is] lol
Information is from the minds of mankind??
How about the data inside the nuclear fusion process the sun undergos to produce light and heat?
From your mind too?
I guess the number of atoms being consistent in every hydrogen atom is a 'concept' as well?
Information is the mapping of already structured materials and their proccesses by means of represented data of said materials and processes.
Is this a joke?
Here, read about data, information, and knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data
So where does information come from class?You and I will never know Vector. Better fall back on your faith, Ol' Chum
lol, this isn't even close.
Faith is the cherry on top friend.
Information exists outside mankind, whether they want to admit it or not.
I know because they STUDY the properties already there to OBTAIN it.......
I know already whether you guys do or not.... lol
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago
0 Two points here
1. People selectivly breeding is the exact opposite of evolution since evolution is not up to the strongest or the fittest but the most adaptable. It has nothing to do with breeding and then having someone care for you to make sure that you survive, your example is of intelligent design Don't mean to laugh but that was a funny, honest, mistake.
2. People fall without parachutes and survive. Doesn't happen often but it does happen.
Except for how the whole thing 'started' right?
The first cell.. nor how irreducible complexity is possible under such changes..
Hmmm.. well - If you have faith though, it could work.
lol....I do, and my theory is complete and fully formed, without 'missing links' or any of the problems you guys have. Science is GREAT. lol
Eternity doesn't work on time principles.
First - I know the denial method so look up Law of conservation of energy first. Energy is eternal.
Second - If eternity has no end why would eternity have a beginning?
Just because you don't understand the universe doesn't mean it isn't structured and system based. Because it is, but can you explain how on that subject either?
No. But it doesn't mean it isn't true.
It means it's above our current comprehension.
There is such a thing you know.. Beyond your comprehension.Contradictions?
I agree.. and there is no contradiction.
Energy is eternal.
Your body is not.
Energy never stops.
Your body will stop.
Please explain.. I don't think you're quite right friend.
- Good one!
Just to set the record straight, I did read your whole post
Are you asking that I make a leap of 'faith' in your hypotheses that inorganic matter magically became organic? ... I'm supposed to believe that the 'dead' became 'living'? sounds like religious hokum and I'm not religious
There's no 'logical fallacy' or 'non sequitur' in believing that life may have been created. Craig Ventner has been credited with "creating the first cell with a synthetic genome" of course, no one is claiming that he is God, but he did create Oh my GOD! there's that word CREATE again, I know, maybe 'it just happened'?
Oh and thanx for the link about abiogenesis, but I already read about it a coupla times
So back to my question, How was the first cell formed? you know, the one that turned into everything. Including all phyla along with all the genera associated within each branch which 'magically appeared during the Cambrian Explosion and then on to, well like I said earlier, everything!
I look forward to the missing links that you hypothesize led to life.
Maybe another wiki?You mean, you were actually serious by asking that ridiculous question?
I look forward to you saying something noteworthy, such as 'an argument' that begs a rebuttal.
Excellent kerryg, thanx for straightening that out (1st & 2nd paragraphs) It seems that you're agnostic leaning towards 'chance' at least that's my take from what you're saying and I'm agnostic leaning heavily in favour of ID (no that's not masked as being a 'creationist')
I'm only open to the possibility of 'chance' in the sense that, hold on a second, actually I'm 'not' open to the possibility of chance I'm only open to the possibility that abiogenesis was directed, and that all life forms were IDed to be within their own family/phylum/kingdom/class/genera, so I don't accept that one particular cell 'began it all' and that every taxa was/is the evolutionary spin off from that one cell. I don't care if there has been 3.5 billion years since the ooze, it can be another 3.5 billion years and a winged insect or flying fox will never become a bat.
Why does it make a difference to me that I don't believe 'one cell' was the beginning of 'all' life forms? because, I don't believe in those odds, the odds that say every single species that has ever lived, those that became extinct, and every living species alive now 'all' came from a single cell that was chemically altered and zapped. There are way too many fundamental differences between species for me to accept that.
If I plant a garden full of vegetables and fruit, the pumpkins I plant will never become asparagus. A horse that gives birth will never give birth to a cheetah, a volcanic eruption will/has never abiogenetically produced a single cell, a meteorite smashing and exploding into a dna clinic will never give rise to a frankencell.
As hard as mankind tries and has tried, we haven't as yet been able to ratify abiogenesis. When that happens, it will be because we were able to manipulate conditions in such a controlled manner and also then to go on to produce cells capable within themselves to evolve and mutate and become viable and separate phyla, will only be because they were Intelligently designed. It can't happen by chance.
So for me it's not only highly improbable, the 'chances' that every lifeform that ever existed happened because of the ooze is 0 to -0
Oh and talking about 3.5 billion years ago is being too generous, what do we do about the Cambrian explosion, 550 million years ago? when most of kingdom animalia made it's debut (within a 60 to 80 million year time frame) how exactly did all the vastly different species 'happen' all at the same time? chance?
Please be more specific, thanx
- jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago0
- ecoethicalveganposted 12 years ago0
"Flying foxes have no connection evolutionarily to a bat, I asked you to prove otherwise and instead you gave me a hypothesis/guess, is that how science works? I thought science was about being empirical not a guessing game."
Are we talking about different species or what? Flying foxes are bats. They're the common name of the Pteropus genus of fruit bats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteropus
"I'm still looking for that scientifically sound evidence that so called "more advanced form that existed previously" connection, or are we placing 'faith' in the hypotheses/guess, again, which is 'junk science'"
Soft-bodied creatures don't fossilize well, so you could be looking for a very long time. However, the limited collection of fossils we do have suggests that there were pre-Cambrian pre-cursors to at least some of the phyla that were previously believed to appear for the first time in the Cambrian.
Rejecting new evidence out of hand because it doesn't fit into your pre-defined worldview is junk science, not re-evaluating previous hypotheses in the face of new evidence.
"Why? I think it's pretty simple, Faith in some invisible, eternal, omnipotent being that created life is a lot easier than hypothesising/guessing that life happened accidentally especially as there are holes in virtually every stage of evolution. (vast ones at that) so you need to stop suggesting that a hypothesis is science."
Name some. The best you've managed so far is claiming that a common genus of bat isn't really a bat(!), possible pre-Cambrian precursors can't possibly be because the connection hasn't (yet) been 100% proven, and we don't know how the first cell formed, so God dunnit. The first one is just weird and the others are based in faith, not science.
"I'm certain that's what I have been saying. Being labelled as 'faith based' and 'unscientific' in a belief that we were created is exactly the same for the theory of natural selection, it's based on thousands of assumptions based on more assumptions, in other words you gotta have 'faith' because the lack of science is monumental. There are 'a priori' arguments on both sides"
Nope. To claim that you know the mechanism of abiogenesis, as you've done, is faith-based at our current level of knowledge. Natural selection is observable fact at the level of microevolution, and one of the best supported theories ever proposed at the level of macroevolution. People have been trying to disprove it for more than 150 years and none has yet succeeded, while the evidence supporting it grows ever stronger.
- ecoethicalveganposted 12 years ago0
"Thank you, I know what a flying fox is, however it has been suggested (not by you) that bats that utilize echolocation descended from flying fox like creatures, shrews, and even insects, what I'm asking is 'show me the money' show me the missing links, show me the skeletal remains, show me the DNA mutations, show me how natural selection, selected the steps that led to echolocation in bats, show me something."
Nobody in their right mind would suggest that bats of any sort evolved from insects, so if that's the type of nonsense you're reading, it's no wonder you don't believe in evolution.
Current evidence suggests that echolocation may have evolved independently in different bat lineages at different times, and that it's based on a minor change to a single gene - the same one used for echolocation by cetaceans, in fact - rather like, for example, lactose tolerance evolved independently in several different human populations, though in that case four different mutations were involved.
"If there are 'limited precursors' then it shouldn't be difficult to name them, please name them as I'd like to check em out."
Um, I named four in my earlier post, and what they're hypothesized to be precursors of.
"How about homo sapiens, we have had 'Java' man 'Piltdown' man 'lucy' 'keyanthropus' (that has recently booted lucy out), so which one is it. Where are the remains/bones that connect apes to humans. There should be tens of thousands of transitional skeletal remains to prove that humans descended from apes, show them to me."
Why should there be more hominid fossils than there is of anything else? We've got the remains of perhaps 1000 individuals, most so fragmentary that you could fit the whole lot in the bed of a pickup truck if you didn't care how much they got jumbled up. If you expect scientists to magically piece together a precise and accurate history of the human race from that, then you have a pretty strange concept of how science works.
The fact that there are uncertainties does not, however, disprove the theory of evolution, no matter how much you seem to want it to. The fossil record we do have, sparse as it may be, behaves pretty much as evolution predicts - you don't have some big-brained Cary Grant type loping around the Pliocene savannah, you have small brained apes gradually turning nto larg brained ones over millions of years.
ID proponents have yet to answer the question of why our hypothetical designer chose to do his designing in such a way that it precisely mimicked the predictions of the theory of evolution.
"How about sharks, where is proof of their evolution? from what I understand they haven't changed, yes there are different species, however the ones that aren't extinct don't have 'precursors' do they?"
Sharks haven't changed much in their essential "sharkiness" but they have evolved since their origin in the Devonian and modern species do have precursors, though precisely what was a precursor to what remains a subject of some debate. For example, some think the modern Great White is a descendant of the spectacular Megalodon, others from type of extinct mako skark.
There's an interesting and detailed overview of shark evolution here:
http://www.elasmo-research.org/educatio … edator.htm
"Do you 'really' want to put your 'faith' in a fossil record that is inherently bankrupt in empirical evidence? I don't."
If fossils were the only proof we had of evolution, I might be more skeptical too, but they're not. Far from it.
Have fun: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"the lack of evolution from insects and shrews etc, to bat echolocation and indeed bats themselves isn't the only 'nonesense' that I draw conclusions from."
I should hope not! I'd be interested to know where you've seen a credible scientist claiming that bats evolved from insects, btw. Link?
"If I have missed something, please be so kind as to straighten me out, however, the above is again only hypotheses, there are no hard facts, are there?"
You missed the part where a mutation in a single gene is responsible for echolocation, apparently.
You're really good at missing the point in general, I guess, because you sure did a spectacular job with your little quote mine.
Here's what the article really says (bolding mine):
None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
As I see it, you're either being deliberately obtuse or you don't have the scientific knowledge to understand what he's saying, which is that the theory of common descent stands as the best possible explanation of the known evidence on its own merit, independent of theories about the mechanism of change. In other words, you don't need to assume that the theory of natural selection is correct in order to prove that the theory of common descent is the best possible explanation of the known facts. Thus your accusation that "there are only hypotheses built upon more hypotheses" is false. They stand on their own merits independent of related theories.
"I did read some things in their link from your link, it was 'a tooth' being disputed as to whether it belonged to an 'ape man' or not. Here's an excerpt from it...... "Bergman's assertion is not supported by the quote given as evidence for it. Gregory and Hellman are not saying that Hesperopithecus was a missing link, or half way between apes and humans, or a proof of Darwin's theory. They were making the far more modest claim that it belonged somewhere in the family group which also contained humans, apes, and Pithecanthropus." Are you comfortable with that level of non-science or junk science? because the bar is set too high, I mean anything could pass under it or classify itself as proof when all you have is 'a tooth' that is being hotly debated as evidence that it may belong to 'The missing link'." You either ignored or overlooked the small but important detail that Jerry Bergman is a creationist. He claimed that some scientists claimed they'd found the "missing link" between humans and apes. They had claimed nothing of the kind, and your quote comes from a page debunking his article in great detail as either a misunderstanding or a deliberate deception. The fact that you managed to quote-mine those particular words without noticing any of this suggests that, like Bergman, you either don't understand what you're reading or are deliberately attempting to deceive those who lack the background to realize that they're being lied to. I hope it's the former, because I'd really expect better than the latter from somebody whose pen-name is "ecoethicalvegan.""I should hope not! I'd be interested to know where you've seen a credible scientist claiming that bats evolved from insects, btw. Link?"
The comment about insects into bats is just one of many theories I have researched and as soon as I find a link from a 'credible' scientist, I'll post it for you.
"You missed the part where a mutation in a single gene is responsible for echolocation, apparently."
Haha, you make me laugh
Maybe I did, do you mind linking me to something that is peer reviewed about that particular mutation, or if it's just a theory about gene mutation in general, no worries I don't need it because it won't help that particular argument.
'None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless."
Yes you're of course right that I didn't include common descent in that quote 'mine' but it wasn't meant to be underhanded, I guess I did a bad job of trying to say this. Macroevolution is entirely dependent on microevolution (maybe there are some cases of quantum leaps) but generally speaking macroevolution and or common descent shouldn't be touted as independent of natural selection or evolutionary changes such as 'fins to limbs/vertebrate eye'..... How can common descent be considered viable if microevolution/natural selection isn't verifiable or not to be depended upon? Common descent/Phylogeny becomes bunkum without natural selection/microevolution. It becomes another unsubstantiated loosely strapped together bedtime story for the budding university paleontologist, it'll definitely send them to sleep So no I don't think I'm being obtuse, just a person that doesn't accept unsubstantiated claptrap.
"You either ignored or overlooked the small but important detail that Jerry Bergman is a creationist. He claimed that some scientists claimed they'd found the "missing link" between humans and apes. They had claimed nothing of the kind, and your quote comes from a page debunking his article in great detail as either a misunderstanding or a deliberate deception. The fact that you managed to quote-mine those particular words without noticing any of this suggests that, like Bergman, you either don't understand what you're reading or are deliberately attempting to deceive those who lack the background to realize that they're being lied to. I hope it's the former, because I'd really expect better than the latter from somebody whose pen-name is "ecoethicalvegan."
The purpose of that particular 'quote mine' was this (sometimes some thoughts need a second shot to be clarified, I'll attempt to do that now)
It isn't the first time nor will it be the last that when a tooth or skull fragment is unearthed, it is somehow magically meant to be 'The missing link' to yet another phylum that supposedly proves that either common descent or natural selection is consistent with biogenesis as though that tooth proves ID doesn't have any validity.
As for my 'pen-name' it is consistent with my moral code for how I live and conduct myself relative to the planet and it's inhabitants, is that OK with you?
Oh and back to the rag tag grouping of the 'chimp to homo sapien' thing. I suggest it is severely lacking in the fossilized recounting of how humans evolved from those particular primates and hominids. Where are the hundreds if not thousands of macro and or micro changes in their evolution? or is it being suggested that the leap from one genera to the next is not just a macro leap but a colossally huge leap, in other words fables"The comment about insects into bats is just one of many theories I have researched and as soon as I find a link from a 'credible' scientist, I'll post it for you."
Please do. I await it eagerly.
"Haha, you make me laugh Maybe I did, do you mind linking me to something that is peer reviewed about that particular mutation, or if it's just a theory about gene mutation in general, no worries I don't need it because it won't help that particular argument."
I posted a link to the Science Daily report on the study in my earlier post. If you want to read the original study, there's this wonderful thing called "Google" you might have heard about.
"Yes you're of course right that I didn't include common descent in that quote 'mine' but it wasn't meant to be underhanded, I guess I did a bad job of trying to say this. Macroevolution is entirely dependent on microevolution (maybe there are some cases of quantum leaps) but generally speaking macroevolution and or common descent shouldn't be touted as independent of natural selection or evolutionary changes such as 'fins to limbs/vertebrate eye'..... How can common descent be considered viable if microevolution/natural selection isn't verifiable or not to be depended upon? Common descent/Phylogeny becomes bunkum without natural selection/microevolution. It becomes another unsubstantiated loosely strapped together bedtime story for the budding university paleontologist, it'll definitely send them to sleep So no I don't think I'm being obtuse, just a person that doesn't accept unsubstantiated claptrap."
Missing the point, you're still doing it. The entire point of the passage in question is that the evidence for macroevolution and natural selection is NOT dependent on the assumption that the other theory is correct.
The author specifically said that it doesn't matter if the mechanism of change is assumed to be natural selection or the long-debunked theories of inheritance of acquired traits or force vitale (or, for that matter, the meddling of some bored eternal being), the evidence for common descent still stands.
"The purpose of that particular 'quote mine' was this (sometimes some thoughts need a second shot to be clarified, I'll attempt to do that now). It isn't the first time nor will it be the last that when a tooth or skull fragment is unearthed, it is somehow magically meant to be 'The missing link' to yet another phylum that supposedly proves that either common descent or natural selection is consistent with biogenesis as though that tooth proves ID doesn't have any validity."
More point missing. Nobody except the creationist ever claimed the tooth in question was meant to be a "missing link." Unlike enthusiastic amateurs and the popular press, real scientists rarely make such claims without very strong justification. The most definitive statement any scientist actually made about the tooth was that it appeared to belong to some kind of ape. He was wrong, as it turns out, but it's worth noting that the original misidentification took place in 1922 and was corrected by 1927. This was still years before Leakey began his excavations at Olduvai Gorge, and during a period when next to nothing was known about human evolution.
The downside of natural scientific caution is that all their maybes, possiblies, and probablies convince people like you that all they've got is "unfounded" hypotheses, when in fact they're building on ~150 years of fossil, geological, molecular, and genetic evidence (more for some species, less for others) when formulating those hypotheses, not just making stuff up out of the blue because they think it sounds reasonable.
"Oh and back to the rag tag grouping of the 'chimp to homo sapien' thing. I suggest it is severely lacking in the fossilized recounting of how humans evolved from those particular primates and hominids. Where are the hundreds if not thousands of macro and or micro changes in their evolution? or is it being suggested that the leap from one genera to the next is not just a macro leap but a colossally huge leap, in other words fables"
First, chimps share a common ancestor with humans, they're not our ancestors themselves. Second, I can see quite a few macro and micro changes just comparing the skulls of the older hominids to the younger ones in that picture, so if they all look identical to you, perhaps a closer examination would be in order. There's a clear transition from smaller to larger brain cavities for starters.
I suggest that if you want transitions between the transitions and transitions between those transitions and then more transitions between those transitions, then you should get out to Africa and start digging. I'm sure paleontologists would love the help - it's a hot, tedious, thankless job if there ever was one."Here's a hint: when looking for scientific studies on Google, type in the name of the journal you're looking for, then find the archives on its website and go to the date you're looking for. Magic! It took me all of five seconds to find both papers cited in the Science Daily report.
If you don't know the journal or the date, Google Scholar is helpful, but since the Science Daily report I linked to included both I'm forced to conclude that you didn't actually bother to read it before dismissing it as a bunch of "magic stories" and "wishful thinking."
Thanx kerryg but that's exactly what I did, in other words I took the link and went as far down it's trail (which included both your links) and found nothing but rhetoric, what I was looking for were the actual 'science' behind all the yapping. Know what I mean?
Common Descent; "Again, the author states that it doesn't matter whether you claim that natural selection or divine meddling or something else entirely is the actual mechanism of change, common descent is still the best possible explanation of the evidence. So, for example, if you want to claim that new species arise because God waves His magic wand and makes them from other species, you still have to say that He started with a common ancestor if you want to be compatible with the available scientific evidence."
Wonderful, so God is responsible, what else do you have?
"You could try scrolling up and reading. The accompanying text includes quite detailed descriptions about what exactly is and is not known about each of the various species in the graph. As I said earlier, you want more, get out there and start digging"
Is that how science works? if science is lacking evidence as in the case for bats, sharks, hominids, etc, then it's down to digging? I luv it, either have 'faith' in evolutionary fables, or dig. I think that about sums up your defense of the probability that 'chance' is the reason, the catalyst for every phylum on the planet.
Despite the chasm pre and post Cambrian for the appearance of hundreds of genera, despite the lack of skeletal remains in most phyla, despite the equivocation of common descent,, despite the fact that along with all the organs, blood, skeletons, senses, that we have a consciousness (how did that evolve?) despite common sense, let's sweep all that under the carpet, or bury our heads in the sand and say, the probability of ID is incredibly remote, but we could always put our money on mutations that most of the time have either a lateral effect or a neutral effect or a damaging effect.
Is mankind going to be the first in the universe to create life? Is panspermia possible? Are there more intelligent organisms out there? Is there a chance that before the big bang there was nothing? no physical universe, if we assigned a number to the enormity of these questions like for instance if we took the time from the big bang till now and said something like 10 billion times that time period prior to the big bang what was going on in the physical universe and if there was no physical universe, what was there? who knows what was going on 10 billion times 10 billion times 10 billion times before that? of course there couldn't be a god or gods anywhere around, out there, because we have it all figured out, at least to the extent that we know there couldn't be another dimension that we have access to coz we be the smart humans, yeah man, that's it, we know for sure that there can only be tangible elements to everything, everything all the way to the other end of the universe that there is no end to, dang we are so smart.
Oh and by the way I'll let you know if I find any credible sources for the 'insect to bat' evolution that I happen to think isn't credible
- Only if one is completely out of touch with reality.
A case in point. The perfect example . . . a big forum frog in a little pond.
Having a hard time perceiving relatives of this nature? Have a good stiff drink, or maybe several and take another gander at your M.I.L.
KIDDING! I, personally, am a creationary evolutionist...or maybe that's a evolutionary creationist....whatever. But, I believe that the most intelligent design is a design that is highly adaptable, and since we are cast "in the image" then God is also highly adaptable. In short, we evolve because God evolved. I am the self-appointed spokesperson for the third alternative.You better watch it with that "evolutionary creationist" talk, or you'll haphazardly start another religion amid society!
Who said about survival?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbiy-4OolPM
- Jesshubpagesposted 12 years ago0
Nice post
I think science prefers to keep guessing
Thank god he finally decided to shut up.
Even if he does, I won't. Hey, ya wanna talk to me, Mr. Roboto? LOL!
This songs fits you well enough, and should be somewhat in your time era of existence, dear AKA Winston: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcCS8AK6csg
Ha-ha-ha!
The only reason I thought of it, is because I mentioned your robotic rhetoric earlier, then all of sudden a vision came down from above and the song Mr. Roboto came into mind...
oh dearrr..- Sooner28posted 12 years ago0
Related Discussions
- 2613
Atheists, would proof of Jesus as the Son of God make you a Christian?
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
- 28
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
- 59
Why do so many church leaders have sex scandals?
All types of churches, not just catholic. There are heaps of ministers/pastors/evangelists/elders etc that have had scandals such as:sexual abusehomosexuality (despite stance against)affairsvisiting prostitutesSometimes the leader is stood down; often everything is swept under the carpet.Do...
- 171
Atheism Handbook Found
Ever since joining Hub Pages, I have read the forums and been struck with how repetitive and somewhat outlandish I find some of the arguments to be against God. I couldn't understand them so I went in search of the answers. Apparently some are reading from a handbook that lists the top four...
- 79
Is the Republican Party the religio/political beast of Revelation 13:1
The bible states that the beast had two horns like a lamb, but a mouth that speak great blasphemy! On the surface it appears to be the Church of Christ, but on close inspection one see that this beast with horns like a lamb is the enemy of Jesus. This beast places a woman the ahead of Jesus Christ,...
- 480
Christianity and evolution
Hi I would like to know, please, if any Christian members of this community accept evolutionary theory as true; or if anyone knows any Christians, who believe that evolution is true?Thanks