Evolutionary Advance?
True but I still think a lot of times people confuse scientific theory with plain old theory when they are not the same. I do agree though that even scientific theories can be wrong and that's why they should be continually tested and explored.
That makes sense and I agree.
That may be true which is why I think the key is education and having an open mind. I have no problem with people having belief and faith in a higher being and I think there can be room for science and facts and belief. It's all how a person looks at it. I enjoy the food for thought.
Hey Cascoly....
I am not being willfully dishonest or beating the issue to death.
Will you be so kind as to provide ONE PIECE of EVIDENTIAL FACT... not a link... anyone can post a link... NOT ANOTHER THEORY, the whole subject is A THEORY. Please PRINT THE FACT you base your scientific platform of belief upon.
I would appreciate the lesson.
Remember, not an ideology, philosophy, area of study... ONE FACT.
Thanks, I appreciate the opportunity to learn from others.
GOD BLESS you.
Hi Penny.
GOD doesn't say anything about the theory of Evolution one way or the other. Perhaps, one of the reasons that Evolutionists and Creationists don't see eye to eye is the idea that Evolution leaves no room for GOD.
So, what you have just said wouldn't go over well for most people, maybe some on each side.
Thanks for your comment. It's appreciated.
GOD BLESS you.
...except the combined personal experiences of billions of people who communicate or have communicated with God over several millennium.... (you forgot to add that).
...and no offence taken!
What we billions do seem to have agreed upon is that we have experienced a personal relationship with God, and liked it, and frankly HOW God created the whole thing is irrelevant, at least to the point in question, which was refuting Paul's assertions: "Biblical creation is a cute story based on nothing."
Biblical creation may not be to Paul's liking, but as a concept, it has as much validity as 'it all came from a big bang and sort of evolved into the most wonderfully complexed life-force all by itself'.
Short of having a time machine, we will simply never be able to confirm what happened.Aquasilver, you said,
HOW God created the whole thing is irrelevant.
This is true. Absolutely true.
Emile R said, "It's all ... faith ..."
That's exactly right.
Aquasilver you also said:
We are all pretty much the same composition in terms of humanity, our flesh and blood, but our minds and aspirations are widely different and magnificent, or dreary, and the direction our minds take depend very much upon our experiences and exposure to what this world offers us educationally, culturally and in terms of nurture.
Insightful. Accurate. Fair. Considerate,
Then you said:
We also need to shake of our preconceptions, preferably on a regular basis, as we have all moved position on something which at some point in our history, which we held to be sacrosanct, but now see as a prior error, a part of the learning process. We are human beings, attempting to make sense of what (IMO) is a spiritual experience.
You know Aquasilver, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we also need to shake off our preconceptions..."... I would add to that ~ life circumstances will bring us to do so. The problem is, so many people have carved particular views into their brain even if there is absolutely no evidence for such a precept to exist... and pride keeps them from revisiting the reason to hold onto those views even if there is really no reason whatsoever to adhere to them.
I may be wrong but I believe no matter "how the world came together...", sooner or later, everyone will face the question of whether or not GOD Exists. Even those who don't know to call HIM GOD understand a Designer exists.
How many would ever come up with the concept of "nothing turning into a living organism, then evolving into a human being when contemplating the meaning of life, the purpose of existence, or the validity of striving toward excellence?
I consider the fact that for the tribal native living in the jungle, the thought that the reason man exists boils down to nothing somehow generating into something alive, vibrant, intelligent even would never occur. In other words, no one would believe in Evolution if this philosophy were not taught. However, many would still believe in GOD.
Call me simple if you like. That is my view.
Thank you both for your comments. They are appreciated.
GOD BLESS you.
Hi Kathleenkat!
I appreciate your comments. (Thank you also for your honesty about never having read The Bible.) Your mention of 'stars falling out of the sky' I will approximate to the verses found in Isaiah 14, where the subject is Lucifer's fall from heaven. It says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isaiah 14:12). The next verse describes how the inspiration of rebellion originated in his heart for which he was cast out of heaven. The mention of 'stars' relates to concept that he thought to place himself higher than GOD
Isaiah 14:13-14 says, " For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
Perhaps, this is to what you are referring, since mention of Sodom provides information about angels visiting Lot, but not stars falling from the sky. Genesis 19 says, "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire ...".
Please do not be offended at my posting two separate verses trying to piece together what you have attempted to state. I am not trying to show you that you don't know what you are talking about.... I am just showing that there is no connection between Sodom and stars of which I am aware.
There is another place where those who read The Bible associate "stars and angels". This is in The Book of Revelation. Chapter 12, verses 3-4, where it says, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...".
Here "the stars of heaven" are considered by Biblical Scholars to refer to fallen angels. As it is believed one-third of the Angelic Host fell from grace along with Lucifer when he was exiled from GOD's Kingdom.
All that aside though, Kathleenkat, you have made a very strong point. You see, archaeology, astronomy and history have each PROVEN MANY FACTS found in THE BIBLE.
For example, "The Battle of Jericho". When the city of Jericho was discovered, the walls of that city were all found to have collapsed, And GOD is SO AMAZING as not to allow for error. Because in the account of the invasion of Jericho, by the children of Israel, GOD told them, they were to march around the city for six days, silently. On the seventh day, they were to shout the PRAISES of GOD, with the ARK of The Covenant in front of the entire parade, and the Levites leading. When they shouted, The Bible reports the "walls (of Jericho) came tumbling down" (my paraphrase).
When Archaeologists discovered Jericho, the walls had indeed were collapsed. HOWEVER, they were found to have fallen outward from the city, not inward. The significance of this discovery is AWESOME, because you see, many naysayers would have liked to state that the people of Israel had pushed the walls in... (as though mere humans could push 12 foot thick walls in just by pressing against them). But the walls were collapsed OUTWARDLY. And everyone must certainly agree, the people of Jericho would not have helped Israel invade their city by pushing the walls down from the inside out.
Cool no?
Anyway... your documentary may (possibly) have some association to what you mentioned. However, the factors are disparate. They do not link to anything mentioned in The Word of GOD.
Thanks for this contribution though. I appreciate this train of thought.
You also say, "biblical stories reflect observations made by people of that age, however did not have the understanding of things as we do today, so described these events in a way which made sense to them at that time with their understandings."
Documentaries are often filled with the opinions of those that do not believe The Bible to be The Word of GOD, And, the documentary you watched might have been a very good one. However, there are also documentaries out there that accentuate the fact that archaeological discoveries give evidence of the very advanced techniques in history, practices such as brain surgery, for which there was no technology.
My point: if ancient history shows that human beings engaged in such activities as brain surgery, without the use of high powered technology such as we have today, are we really more intelligent now? Do we really have greater understanding today? The concept is questionable, and debatable.
Again, thanks for your comments. Your view is much appreciated.
GOD BLESS you.Hi Cascoly.
You are so intent on proving me wrong in everything I say. Yet you have not provided SOLID EVIDENCE TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Links don't cut it.
You don't have to believe anything I say. I will not bother to place a link so you can read whether or not I am correct. You are intent on proving me 'ignorant'.
If you think I am, I cannot change your mind. However, I disagree. Earlier you said the responsibility to disprove Evolution is on me because I am the one questioning its validity, credibility, veracity. Well, guess what. i have.
I asked you to PROVE IMMUTABLY that Evolution IS, you have not.
Your attempts to change the subject or cause me to appear less than capable of addressing the issue are boring to me. I won't engage in them.
I am not diminished by your accusations. I believe to have provided substantial logic to support my position. You don't agree.
Fine.
GOD BLESS you.
Not at all TM, the guy was obviously top of his field and well respected, and if he discovered that what he has accepted as correct (without prior critical examination) was actually incorrect, he was behaving in a perfectly scientific manner by discarding the false evidence he became aware of, and exploring the new evidence that came forth after realising that what he previously believed was incorrect.
Still glad to see you back!
JohnDear Cascoly,
You said, "it's called the argument from incrdulity -- "gee, i cant imagine how this happened ...THEREFORE it never happened"
Are you referring to a Harvard Scholar basing a complete change of study upon an inability to "imagine how this happened" and then concluding, "THEREFORE it never happened"...
I'm sorry but unless you provide a better argument I will have to pretend I never read those words, they are absolutely .... well.... to me, they make no sense.
You see, you said, "the tired arguments [supposedly] against evolution without actually presenting ANY scientific evidence."
In a court of law: "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position."
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)
Since the concept of Creationism existed long before the 'theory of Evolution" the burden of proof legally rests upon Evolutionists.
That is my position.
GOD BLESS you.
Hi Twosheds1,
150 years of what some have inclined toward considering evidence does nothing to answer the question I posted. I didn't ask you for a description of the history of study. I understand that sort of evolution.
So far, a number of really intelligent, clear, concise, deliberate and masterful observations have been posted on this thread. What has not been posted, by you or by anyone else... is ONE CLEAR FACT, not probable point, not plausible evidence, not supposed thought, conjecture, ideology, philosophy etc.,. Just ONE SOLID, ABSOLUTE FACT pertaining to the manner in which Evolution is PROVEN.
In other words, I have done my homework, (not based on one individual and his claims to conversion or thoughts dissuading him of his position); however, in the course of my efforts i have not come across ONE SOLID FACT PROVING EVOLUTION IS TRUE.
If you can answer how, life EVOVLED out of NOTHING. ... not beginning with that one-celled organism that is proclaimed to be the first fruit of the tree of life, but THE NOTHING THAT CAME BEFORE the one-celled organism.... HOW DID NOTHING COME ALIVE?...
If you can do that... then ...
Well... if you can answer that, you will have all the evidence BIOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, or any other study on the face of this earth NEEDS in order to VERIFY the THEORY of Evolution.
If you cannot PROVE that to me... everything else you write is a moot point. I'm sorry I cannot believe your word over GOD. I will take GOD's WORD over your word, or explanation or thoughts, or analysis, or.... or... or.... on every point you will ever make.
You see, all I asked for at the beginning of this thread was that someone present... one SOLID PROVEN, IMMUTABLE FACT. Such a presentation might have the ability, the capacity, the potential to help me understand why so many people take on BLIND FAITH that Evolution is real.
In my mind: Evolution is a false theory. The Science pertaining to EVOLUTION is false Science.
Calling me stupid (using various manifestation of indirect expression) won't harm one hair on my head. If you're so smart, PROVE to me I'm wrong.
I don't have anything else to say on the subject.
You have NOT PROVEN anything. Therefore, I continue in my position. PROVE me wrong, and I will consider what you have spoken to have merit.
GOD BLESS you.Troubled Man, Troubled Man, Troubled Man...
Did you ever think maybe it is your trust in things that do not exist that makes you so troubled?
You want to accuse me of 'not understanding evolution' as a result of my belief system. You can try. But I think I've shown that if ONE IMMUTABLE FACTUAL PIECE of EVIDENCE can be given to show the evolution of NOTHING, pure, vacant, hollow, imaginary NOTHING somehow coming to life ...if it could be PROVEN... I may be inclined to reconsider my position.
GOD BLESS you, Sir.
GOD BLESS you, truly.Hey there, Twosheds1,
You said, "Organic molecules are abundant in the universe, and on the early Earth they found conditions that were conducive for life, and life arose. The process isn't fully understood, I agree, but to give up trying to find out how it happened and to say "God did it," admits defeat and accepts ignorance. "
I can say, "GOD did it" with as much confidence as you can do so.
You admit (finally someone does~ I applaud you for this... thank you for doing so...) that "the process isn't fully understood. That's not much, but I'll take it.
Then you place another link for me to check out.
I can read the link, but the link proves NOTHING.
Did you read on this page that this is a STUDY?
Did you read that this is: "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). In other words, this is one more STUDY TRYING TO PROVE A THEORY, a HYPOTHESIS, an ASSUMPTION.
So? ... a "term" which refers " to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen"
A term... referring to something that MAY HAVE ARISEN? Wow! That is your proof?
Your link teaches me nothing.
Twosheds1, all I am requesting is ONE SOLID PIECE of EVIDENCE. If you cannot provide this, no study will be good enough to change my view. You can call me defeated if you like. You can say I "accept ignorance[/i]. if this makes you feel better.
The trouble is, you have NOT CHANGED the FACTS by what you say. I am who I happen to be. You don't know me. However, I am inviting you to educate me... not with MORE THEORIES, STUDIES, HOPES and ASSUMPTIONS, I am inviting you to PROVE TO ME THAT WHAT YOU TRUST IS FACT HAS A BASIS of TRUTH attached to it.
You cannot. Science cannot. None Exist. Call me whatever you like. FACTS are. Such is the truth.
If you cannot provide any FACT, you cannot keep arguing that I am ignorant, or I am defeated. I do not accept your statements as true, any more than I accept your lack of factual evidence.
GOD BLESS you.
Hello Kathleenkat,
You said, "You talk about "blind faith" here, but do you not yourself have blind faith in God? Have you met God? Have you seen seen solid facts and evidence proving He is real?"
How very kind of you to ask. Actually, I have experienced something very real pertaining to GOD and my faith. I will not address the issue here, because this thread is not about my experience. However, by experience I can tell you, without any doubt, fear or apprehension, "GOD IS VERY REAL." The fact that many do not know HIM doesn't change this fact.
Thank you for being considerate enough to say you are, "...not trying to undermine (my) religion."
The truth of the matter is, I don't have a 'religion'. What I believe about GOD is very personal, very real and based completely, and solely on my experiences as well as my understanding from years, months, weeks, days and hours poured into getting to [i]know HIM better. I say 'know' because that is what I have: knowledge of GOD. This knowledge is an intimate relationship that has nothing to do with worldly intimacy, but everything to do with spiritual intimacy. This knowledge is the very element related to 'faith' that most people ignore, rebuff, reject, doubt when it comes to GOD, but are willing to engage when dealing with the occult or with things secular.
Kathleenkat,
I'm not trying to undermine your 'belief in evolution' either. What I am trying to do is bring to surface one truth that most believers in 'Evolution' refuse to admit. That truth: you are believing in Evolution on 'blind faith'. However, Evolution doesn't deserve your loyalty.
Evolution is not a law, such as the law of gravity. Evolution is a concept many embrace because it offers an option other than GOD. This may not be you. Certainly it is not me. However, it is many who have no idea what undergirds the agenda behind Evolution.
I appreciate and accept your willingness to believe something that "makes sense to (you).". I also appreciate your honesty.
Your comments have been and are astute, fair and welcome.
Thank you.
GOD BLESS you.
Hello Sophia Angelique....
Welcome to the discussion.
You ask a question. Can I answer? I don't know. Your rating on HubPages is almost perfect. Mine is not. (Way to go, Girl ~ on that account!!) Does that reflect on our comparative intelligence? I cannot tell. However, the wrong response from me, may make it so.
Let me try though... within the limited capacity of my articulation... I will try.
You ask: a) Why is it so important for you (and others) to constantly challenge the findings of evolution? If you want to believe in creationism, you're welcome.
My answer: Almost every Thread on HubPages related to a subject linking itself to Creationism, and/or especially to Belief in GOD, has been met with disparaging, diminishing, sometimes rude, and often defeating remarks and comments. My goal is not to challenge the findings of evolution, if there are any actual findings. My goal is to cause individuals to consider that whether or not Evolution is, GOD IS.
You then said, "b) I'm sure you're familiar with the idiom, "one sparrow does not a summer make.' In other words, the fact that a handful of atheists recanted their position does not in anyway make up for the millions (including pastors) who are moving away from religion. It's currently moving towards 20%"
I don't care if the entire world embraces the theory of Evolution. That embracing would not be enough for me to believe such a theory, UNLESS FACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove NOTHING CAN TURN INTO A LIVE ORGANISM, even if it is ONE-CELLED, existed.
You see, it is my firm belief that GOD ALONE CREATES LIFE, in whatever manifestation, application, formula and platform HE DESIRES. Without HIM there is no life. Therefore, if LIFE CAN BE MANUFACTURED FROM NOTHING, ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE, EMPTY NOTHING, then to me that will prove GOD IS IN THE EQUATION.
No number of statistics, no mention of authoritative figures, no stunning, dazzling, or apparent firework display of fascinating hypotheses' will cause me to change my mind. All I'm asking for is immutable evidence.
GOD has given me such, in relation to my faith in HIM. I'm not asking for anymore from those who mock HIM, or HIS Participation in CREATION. I am only asking for the same.
Thank you though, for your statistics. They may be accepted by many others as evidence to trust. Like a placebo in an experiment... many will believe such evidence enough.
GOD BLESS you.
There are examples of the Mathematical Equations, including factors associated with the numbers a person would be looking at (and comments made as a result of what is posted) for such a SCIENTIFIC FACT to be proven at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/640506/posts
I didn't do the math myself. Sorry. I thought you might call such a (hit and miss) effort... "yet another example of creationist pseudo-science - taking science they dont understand themselves and quoting it out of context to try to make a point."
Oh, but you have, "said before, ignorance in itself is not a problem..."
GOD BLESS you, Cascoly.Cascoly,
Are you stating the value of the "law of Thermodynamics' to me now? Are you using the concept of 'the law of thermodynamics' to tell me that what I've offered as proof using SCIENTIFIC FACT can be disputed by another SCIENTIFIC FACT?
See, in an earlier post from you, when I explained how THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN EVERY EFFORT OF the Evolutionary THEORY, you didn't much ascribe to that law...
Am I seeing the evidence of an individual who will grab at every greased pot bottom in order to save himself from drowning?
Cascoly... I've been to your Hub Pages, and you are an amazing Photographer. I didn't have time to read your posts, but it is obvious to me that you have travelled the world and have seen so very much. I would not be surprised if, in your travels, you also indulged in various practices that gave rise to such engagements that entertain doctrines of demons, if not the very demons themselves.
If, in the off chance, this may be your truth, then I offer you the concept of considering your views are eschewed. You are obviously a very intelligent individual. I will not scoff at your brain's worth, as you do mine, just because we do not agree. However, I ask you to be fair, not necessarily honest... and that, not to me, but to yourself.
Cascoly, you owe it to yourself to stop believing lies. You owe it to yourself to stop fighting the idea of GOD as CREATOR. HE MADE you. HE LOVES you. HE WILL HURT on the day of judgement when, if you continue as you do, you are cast into the place that was created for the devil and his evil horde. The Lake of Fire is a real place. This location was not meant for humans. Unfortunately, there are a great many humans there already. Do yourself a favor. Not for me. I know WHOM it is I believe, but for you. Your ETERNAL DESTINY, in the world that never ends... that is INFINITE... rests on your position on this earth.
GOD BLESS you, Sir. MAY HE BLESS you GREATLY, PROFOUNDLY, WONDROUSLY, through YESHUA, THE MESSIAH, HIS SONG of Deliverance, THE KING of Kings. Amen.
P. S.
It is very obvious from our interactions that you and me will never ever, in this lifetime agree.... Let's call it even, shall we then... you and I?
I leave the ball in your court. If you respond again, I probably will as well...
GOD BLESS you.
Threats of wrath only show just how desperate believers are when they've been caught red handed time after time attempting to masquerade their faith driven dishonesty as logic and reason, believing we are as gullible and ignorant as them, breaking the boundaries of the ridiculous.TM... Come on now... I think, because you are smarter than you show, that you know I am not threatening anyone.... I'm simply stating a fact. This is one fact I cannot prove this side of heaven... however, once this life is all said and done, if you are not sharing an Eternal Peace alongside me, for the breath of time that I remember you, I will be saddened.
GOD BLESS you, Troubled Man. MAY HE TAKE all your troubles and sweep them away, on the you meet.There are few if any facts in your posts. Regurgitating the wrath of God is not a fact.
Those religious fantasies have no bearing on me whatsoever. Your feigned sadness only shows a false superiority.
Hi Wilderness...
Nice of you to join the conversation. Your comments are appreciated.
You said, "man has artificially evolved the banana tree to the point it cannot reproduce with man's help.."
Are you saying this is a good thing.
Do you realize that seeds have been modified to the degree where a person/farmer cannot use the seedlings produced from new fruit,/harvest because all that will develop is the branches or stalk... no fruit...? Think about it. This is insidious. For hundreds and thousands of years, people have sustained themselves using the seedlings produced from the fruit of their present year harvest. With the help of mankind you're now saying a banana tree cannot reproduce itself without the help of man and that is GOOD?????
SORRY. I CANNOT AGREE. BANANA'S HAVE BEEN REPRODUCING THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE HELP OF MAN FOR CENTURIES. WHY DID MAN GET INVOVLED? Could it be to control the production... as many other aspects of civilization are being controlled or nearing that place?
Again, think about it... eventually, as those who are doing the genetic modifying complete the process nothing will grow unless the seed comes from them... but you can only produce a harvest the first year. Second year, all you will get is the stalk... branch... greenery. Now, instead of being able to grow vegetables without going to buy new seeds, you'll be able to grow the shrubbery. Oh... well... that is great. We can use this portion of the plant in our flower garden. GREAT MODIFICATION. AWESOME.
How is this helpful?
Then you say, "and most of its livestock to where they would hardly recognizable to people from 500 years ago."
Again, to your mind: is this a good thing?
Cows are being pumped up with so many drugs they are producing eight to ten times more milk than is normal. As a result they often become infected... then they are given antibiotics, so that traces of antibiotics carry over into the bloodstream of those who drink the milk... which in turn causes people to become immune to antibiotics, which in turn allows for mutation of the virus, which is actually a genetic loss, not improvement. Bacteria becomes resistant to drugs because they lost information... The antibiotic cannot lock onto the ribosome of the bacteria because that ribosome is lost in mutation... resistant only to the particular drug that caused the mutation.
Wilderness... let me ask you: do you believe you/humans evolved from a rock?
Do you know that Darwin wasn't even the first person to have the ideas that he took to be his own?
Do you believe that 20 billion years ago... or so... (lots of evidence for this) something exploded and turned nothing into something? Truly?
Do you understand that the mathematics necessary to create ONE HUMAN CELL... not an entire person, but ONE FULLY DEVELOPED HUMAN CELL, would take cazillions of years to evolve... and that... only if nothing were not the base structure of formation? That first organism would have to be ALIVE. But how could it be without something live sparking (to use a good word suggested to me) life?
Sorry... I can't agree with your points. Thanks though for the input.
GOD BLESS you.Hey...
I appreciate your sentiments. So we agree that modifications by man are not necessarily good. Maybe some are. Maybe some intentions are even good. But the 'genetic manipulations' can actually be destructive.
Now you said, "As far as coming from a rock, where did that come from? It isn't a part of the evolutionary theory...".
Actually this is part of the theory. Most people who claim to believe in Evolution don't even realize it. I'm sorry I cannot do the homework for you, but you should look into it.
You ask: "where can I see that analysis?"... I placed a link in one of my posts. However, the mathematics was scoffed at (by a few particular people)... just like every other thing I post here... but if you like you can find that post. Or I can try to find that post for you.
Again, thanks for your input. I can see you're not trying to break down my points... you are actually interested in figuring out if there is a basis of truth to Evolution.
But something you said I found really interesting, You mentioned 'genetic modification' and 'manipulation'. If, "Evolution" were reconfirmed in title as 'MODIFICATION of the Species', or 'MANIPULATION of The Species', then I would agree with it. Because that is all genetic experimentation is... man-playing- with genes.
Great point. Thanks.
GOD BLESS youWilderness...
How about leaving the math out and considering these statements:
Stephen Hawking:
"...our present computers are less complex than the brain of a an earthworm, a species not noted for their intellectual powers..." (Spoken at a White House Millennium Council ~year 2000)
Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling:
"...a single-cell, the smallest LIVING unit is more complicated than New York City." (emphasis mine).
Or... you can check out the math link.
GOD BLESS you.
Hey Twosheds1!
Awesome points!
You say,
selective breeding has been going on for centuries (indeed, millenia) to produce cattle that make good steaks and lots of milk. A better example might be the dog. My dachshund is the same species as my co-worker's St. Bernard. Imagine that! And both are descended from a common ancestor of the modern wolf. Dogs, though, have been modified through selective breeding to produce certain traits and temperaments. This stll goes on. Ask any dog breeder or anyone who shows their dog. This also has been going on for millenia, but in this case it was artificial, rather than natural selection.
The point is, left to their own devices, domestic dogs probably never would have come about. It is only through human intervention that we have dogs today.
But your dog and your co-worker's dog were not bred into something that is a 'non-dog'?
And left to their own devices, how long do you think, since the dog species has existed until the time that the combination you and your co-worker share, would have come into existence without man's help?
You don't have to provide numbers. I know what I am asking is impossible to calculate. My point: that is just ONE SPECIES. Yet, there is no proof that even one cell has come full circle the way you are postulating.
I haven not read the books by Hawkings and Krauss that you've read. Nor do I doubt the interesting amalgamation of scientific theory presented therein, but seriously... in the end it is all still only theory.
And I don't believe theories that have no true foundation.
See, if I were I Scientist right now, I would lay onto this board content that might present a theory none could refute, for their lack of instruction. But that would not make my theory FACT. I could make it sound amazing, intellectual, completely thought out and real, but in the end if there were enough missing factors the entire premise could be, most likely would be FALSE.
That is my point.
Your comments are valid, valuable, interesting and I appreciate them. However, I still fail to see what about the "20 billion years ago or so..." gives credence to anything?
My original comment was meant to show that just as I believe in Creationism, Evolutionists believe what they believe, not based on scientific fact, but in FAITH... just as in 'a religion'. The difference between me and them is, I know I am believing by faith. They refuse to admit theirs is a faith-based religion.
Again, Twosheds1, your comments are much appreciated. i enjoyed reading this.
GOD BLESS you.
What you are describing is not evolution, it is adaptation within kinds. As long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind. Kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species. Note that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. Because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information, there was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.(http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers).
We are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
It is erroneous, then, to say that a human-tampered banana is proof, that human-tampered farm animals are proof, that a virus adapting to a virus is proof of GTE.
Show me, using the scientific method, evidence of a banana becoming something other than its kind, or a cow becoming something other than its kind, and you can claim evolution to be scientific.
Cascoly,
There is plenty of proof for Creationism.
The theory of evolution... resolving into a study of "changing environments or natural selection that causes the "reproduction of forms" other than the original without the capacity to reproduce once manipulated by human beings is a better definition.
Thing is, we will not agree on this. Your website proofs bore me just as much as mine do you. Therefore, (and considering I have a big Musical Event coming up this weekend) let's leave off, you and I... shall we?
My child is home from the hospital now; and whereas I was visiting several times a day before, more attention is necessary at home. Besides, I've been preparing for this weekend for months; and need to devote more time to it until after it's over now.
Thanks for your interaction.
GOD BLESS you.
(I'm sorry... I'm certain this appears a cop out... I wouldn't normally defer, but I have a lot of work in front of me... Big Event this week. Competition next week... as well as another Event...).
GOD BLESS each of you... if anyone decides to continue the conversation... I will notice from my emails... I will also be very tempted to respond...... but I will probably have to force myself to stay away...
...)
*This is directed to those of you who have been kind enough to interact/participate in this discussion... whether we have agreed or not.)
MAY GOD'S RICHEST BLESSINGS REST upon you.
The moment you actually write an honest word here, I will acknowledge it.
Yes, I know. It is the only reason you believe what you believe and perhaps is the reason for your dishonest posts here.
Feel free, but try to be honest for a change.
Your belief might be honest, but what you're writing about science and evolution are not.
Yes, your faith is based on magic and your posts on the subject matter offer no value whatsoever.
You've destroyed your own credibility here.
LOL! Your efforts here are as futile as they are dishonest.
No, they point your dishonesty.
Perhaps, you haven't noticed others are not agreeing with you here regarding evolution and science? Did you miss that or are just ignoring it?
Pray to feed the starving, instead.
- Emile Rposted 11 years ago
0Hi EmileR!
I would like very much to check out the article. I'm still researching. I wouldn't mind (if you still have this information...) reading it through.
Thanks so much,
GOD Bless you.You said, "I'm on a mobile phone."
No problem. I can try to look for it. I'm sure it would be interesting.
You said, "I'm not a Harvard professor, but I see a plethora of questions that remain unanswered which keep me from thinking they are 100% on the right track on explaining the origin of life on earth."
How right you are. Not many of us here can boast about being a Harvard professor. Beyond that, the hundred million questions that remain unanswered, and may ALWAYS remain unanswered prove that whatever we believe is poised on a basis of FAITH.
That is, in part, my point. While there may be scientists and Ph. D's on both sides of the coin that declare reasons for believing or disbelieving either of these platforms, many are placing their declarations on the a pivot point that says, 'as far as I'm concerned I will believe this even though there is NO PROOF, despite proof that neutralizes the theory completely'.. and each individual says so in FAITH and/or by choice...
Furthermore, those who say they believe in nothing are actually lying to themselves. Even if they say they believe 'nothing' or 'in nothing' that is still a premise of faith. To make 'nothing' the platform of certainty, a person needs to make 'nothing' a personal philosophy. Such a philosophy is based on a decision.
Using as an example what you also said here for instance:
"I'll take people saying there is no God, and attempting to solve the riddles over preachers telling us we shouldn't question any day of the week.
I will attempt to expand on what you have said hoping to emphasize the intention of your words here: (If I am mistaken please feel free to correct me.)
I'll take (CHOOSE) people saying (to believe those who say) there is no God, and attempting to solve the riddles over (rather than) preachers telling us we shouldn't question..."
I agree with you.
The Bible tells us we SHOULD QUESTION and we owe it to our eternal destiny to try to resolve the questions we have in our hearts and minds relating to HIM, as truthfully and as well as plausible within our ability to understand the answers, and the opportunity available to us to garnish resources that will help us find as many answers as we need in order to decide wisely.
With Evolution, those who claim to have 'found a missing link' actually have no proof of this. Most of what is being espoused as fact is actually assumption. Much of what is being experimentally produced is being produced out of elements that are already ALIVE... and MIGHT never have any way of integrating into one another in the natural if not put together in a test tube by a scientist. Moreover, the scientist will have had to utilize matter that is ALREADY ALIVE, since no scientist has ever been able to produce LIFE OUT OF NOTHING. Therefore, evolutionary scientists must ASSUME the LIVE MATTER somehow came into existence ~something called, 'spontaneous generation'... and then from there, that evolution took place over millennia.
For reasons that are beyond my articulation skills to explain... and while this platform defies the scientific efforts to prove itself, with odds AGAINST an occurrence such as spontaneous generation having been calculated by scholars in a formula that measures somewhere at 1 to the 141st exponential power... in other words 'non-existent', this premise is perceived as a viable condition for the remaining processes of evolution to exact themselves.
Though I cannot paraphrase the molecular structures that would need to generate, transition, mutate etc., even IF spontaneous generation was more than a figment of imagination, one thing has been repeatedly proven, is that the same way no actual link has been found to exist between man and his supposed cousin the ape, so no such possibility of creating life from an element lacking life, exists. No matter what type of advanced 'lifeless' elements are utilized, no matter what type of laboratory devices are available, life cannot be generated from nothing.
These are a few of the 'facts' that I find more than interesting, because they are irrefutable.
Again, like you, I am no Harvard professor... would that I were...
Thanks, Emile R. Your view, insight and commentary is appreciated.
GOD Bless you.Hi Troubled Man.
Sorry it took me so long to come back to your comment. I didn't read it all. I was arrested by this statement you made:
Scientists don't talk like that, they don't rest their hypotheses and theories on "proof" but instead evidence. They don't "believe" in evolution, they understand it.
My question to you then, is WHAT EXACTLY DO Scientist UNDERSTAND if there is no proof to undergird the theory? Can you supply some 'evidence for me?
I appreciate your view.
Thank you and GOD BLESS you.Wow. Troubled Man.
I tried to keep reading but stopped here:
Believers base their intellect on beliefs rather than understanding, usually because they have not developed the capacity to understand things and have been indoctrinated to believe, hence they can't comprehend how others need not believe in things as they do.
These are pretty heavy statements. Some people might consider them accusations.
Can you provide an example for me?
I would really like to understand what you have just stated, so I can make an effort to believe it.
Thank you.
GOD BLESS you.
P. S.
I'm not mocking. I know it might READ that way. But I'm not. I'm trying to make a point, but I can only do so by asking questions as I go.
(Plus... I might not be back for a while. I have work right now... ). Ciao for now. GOD BLESS you.
Sounds interesting. Do you have some names so that I can read their work or check out their findings?
Thanks for this Psycheskinner.
GOD Bless you.Point taken.
(It was nice of you to be so sweet, by calling 'silly' ~what you consider to be the illogical acceptance of creationism~ something that equally cannot be proven.)
The fact is, for most Creationists, the concept of GOD CREATING the Universe, Planet, Man, Mouse etc., is taken by 'faith'. However, Evolutionists want the everyone to believe their 'theory' is a proven fact.
Evolution is NOT A PROVEN FACT. Those who believe in this theory do so 'in faith'. That is my point.
Moreover, Atheists, people who often say they believe in 'nothing' use Evolution as one of the major platforms for their faith in no faith. They make a lot of statements intended to portray Creationists as illogical, unintelligent, blind, deaf, dumb and well, shall we say, 'mentally challenged' individuals, who wouldn't know what hit them if it were a forty pound rock.
That is not acceptable.
Now, I know... you're going to say Creationists do the same with Atheists or anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. Unfortunately, that may be true. That is why I started this Thread. That is why I asked that no one attack anyone personally.
To belittle one person for believing something you don't is also unacceptable.
Whether a person is an Evolutionist or a Creationist... or a believer in nothing at all... not calling themselves an Atheist, because the label alone has the potential to make Atheism a 'religion' by virtue of the numbers, is not what this Thread is directed at determining. Neither is the idea of 'who is right?' or 'who is wrong?'
What I find interesting is "what basis an individual has for the belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'?
I appreciate your comment, MelissaBarrett! GOD BLESS you.You said, But nothing is a "proven fact." Is it a "proven fact" that a shooting took place at a movie theater in Aurora, CO, a couple weeks ago? You might think so, but really all you have is some evidence provided by the news media that it actually happened (assuming you weren't there).
Actually, no. I have proof that the Aurora shooting took place.
There was one young woman, Jessica Ghwai, who was at a shooting in Toronto Ontario, Canada. Not far from where I live, just before the shooting in Aurora. She escaped death at the Eaton's Center shooting. However, she was one of the fatal victims of the Aurora shooting.
Did her attendance at the Colorado shooting substantiate the media coverage of that particular case? Yes.
Jessica Ghawi, being a survivor of the Eaton's Center shooting, and having blogged about it... caused the media reports attached to her victimization to be quadrupled just for being at the second tragic shooting, and then magnified by becoming an actual victim of the violence.
The heightened media around her death, and the interviews of people who were affected by her death considering her first escape becomes a more direct evidence. The fact that she was an aspiring News broadcaster, and was known on a more public platform, with public figures acknowledging her tragic loss and making public the effect the tragedy had on them... affirm her death. The reports of a brother who was unable to attend "the hearing" for the shooter, because he was afraid he would try to get his "hands on (the) man" and who was publicly interviewed by CNN also presents tangible evidence for her actual presence at the theatre and her actual demise.
The public hearing, where the shooter was charged with the twelve murders substantiate the circumstance. So does Jessica Gwhai becoming the first officially named victim.
Also her last words, tweeted to her friend, relating how strange she felt moments before the tragedy took place.... ARE A TESTIMONY to the reality, odd though it may be, of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time TWICE; and the air of foreboding that she rightfully experienced just before she was shot to death is an queer legacy left for her family.
(The Tweet can be read here if you are interested: http://twitchy.com/2012/07/20/aurora-vi … her-death/)
Your analogy fails you. Sorry.
Every analogy where there is SOLID TANGIBLE EVIDENCE WILL FAIL you. You need to think of something where NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE exists, something that still comes off as FACT. Such as (for example) GRAVITATIONAL PULL. The law of gravity is intangible, However, the fact that human beings are not flying off the surface of the earth provides us SOLID, TANGIBLE (though invisible) EVIDENCE that this law IS FACT.
I hope this helps you.
GOD BLESS you,
Hi Aguasilver!
Yes. I found the point you addressed most valuable. I think this is the stance many individuals take. They make a decision to 'choose a side', without really thinking through the 'science'. Once that decision is cemented in the mind, it becomes like a mental tattoo. Many will not consider removing the concept, not because it is a valid one, but because it is too hard to make the mental conformation.
What I liked about the testimony was his description of that young student, whose study habits were so meticulous as to desire an absolute confirmation, whose discipline of study was so decisive as to feel comfortable going directly to a more skilled authority to discuss the options, facts and ultimate truth, whose heart was so inclined toward grace that she did not dare consider herself above instruction; yet, was confident enough to place herself in the place of being taught what she was missing, if she was missing the point. Awesome.
I wonder where she is now. I wonder what she is doing. I pray she is enjoying the fruits of her pursuit of excellence.
Thanks for your comment. I found the link truly engaging. Dr. Lumsden must have been a great lecturer, before and after his conversion to Creationism.
GOD BLESS you.
Cool note, Troubled Man.
By the way, "Hi". How are you?
I'm glad you've joined the conversation.
I can't respond to your thoughts right now, because I'm busy. But, I will if I get a chance... maybe later today.. Otherwise...
I don't feel that I have to publicize what Dr. Lumsden discovered for several reasons... among which:
He must have written books after his conversion stating his reasons for re-establishing a choice. I'm sure that his later platform is documented for all to access.
Anyway... I do have to go now.
GOD BLESS you.
Until later....Hi Autumn18.
May I suggest you check out library resources.
This man spent his whole life as a Professor. (which is defined in the dictionary as a teacher in the highest academic rank. And...
He had several areas of specialty. That tells me, he studied hard. He was diligent. He was intelligent.
To think that he would suddenly stop writing his findings when he made such a life changing decision, one that caused the whole surface of his life to be redirected, does not make sense.
I'm certain he has books, articles or other documentation to the foundational structures undergirding his change of mindset. The thing is, NOT EVERYTHING is on the internet... (well not yet at least). So, you may find what you are looking for from the University where he last taught, or in a biography, or published diary (if one exists).
The fact that you are having trouble finding any documentation related to the reasons behind why he changed his premiss may not mean such writings don't exist, only that they are not easily accessible.
In fact, there may be in a personal journal somewhere, or a compilation of articles. If you read/listened to his testimony you will recall there were many factors directing him to revisit his platform, including mathematical, genetic, molecular and more.
Dr. Lumsden spent (and he was specific about this) 3 hours and 22 minutes with the young lady who challenged his evolutionary viewpoints. She brought resources with her, in order to back up her position, or reinforce the need to check out areas of discrepancy. Also, she was a math major as well as a medical student. The interaction was not lightweight.
I wish I could have been in that room. Though I am not a highly acclaimed scholar/academian I love learning from circumstances where challenges are met, butted and rebutted with good, solid evidence, or logic.
I hope you find something that helps meet your curiosity. Just remember: Dr. Lumsden is not the only scholar who changed his mind. There are others and for me, listening to other explanations associated with what motivated each change has been equally interesting, equally inspiring... not necessarily inviting change of heart, but at least a more open mind related to the 'facts'.
GOD BLESS you... Autumn18.
Hey Kathleenkat....
You said, "Other people dismissing God isn't a reason for you to dismiss the idea. Same as people believing in God and dismissing evolution does not cause me to dismiss the idea."
You are right! Each individual has a responsibility to decide based on the merits of their own systems of deduction. The sad thing is, a lot of people do sort of tag along, believing whatever seems most popular or socially acceptable.
There is also the possibility that believing in GOD and believing in Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, that is what is promoted in this world.
I believe GOD IS SO AWESOME, SO INDESCRIBABLE, SO INFINITE as to have the capacity to have created this world whatever way HIS HEART DESIRED. Of course, I base this belief on my personal interactions with HIM, since HE IS THE GOD I worship, trust, honor and love. My life experiences give me every reason to consider HIM capable of creating the heaven and the earth in a manifestation that so defies human understanding that it would be pointless explaining it, or trying to do so, for us.
Besides, if HE IS GOD, why should HE HAVE TO PROVE anything to anyone? (But that is another discussion completely...)
You said: "I, myself, think there is something out there bigger and better than human beings could ever understand."
I agree completely.
You said, "Whether that is a God or a mere accidental collision is yet to be determined; and on that, I will never stop wondering."
I appreciate your honesty. I also appreciate your desire to know the truth. I think that is all anyone of us can hope to achieve... in as much as is accessible to us.
You said, "Either way, I wasn't trying to come accross as you not thinking, I was simply trying to explain what that other poster probably meant."
Your comment is a valuable contribution to this discussion. Thank you for participating. I'm glad you have.
GOD BLESS you.
Troubled Man....
You said, "Admitting you have no understanding of evolution is the first step towards making the attempt."
That is exactly the point. Scientists, being mere humans, and investing themselves into the study thereof, can not say they have an 'actual understanding of evolution'. They can only hypothesize.
The fact that a particular Scientist comes up with a particular hypothesis doesn't make the concept real. Unless evidence proves different, every hypothesis remains just that... a hypothesis. A guess. A speculative (although in the case of some Scientists ~academically inclined) assumption.
The fact that you and I don't have a Scientific degree doesn't make our 'guesses' any more or any less valuable, in a general sense. We may not be able to contribute much in a laboratory (perhaps), but that doesn't change the fact that our brain WORKS.
in fact, sometimes the mind of a non-Scientist has more clarity, because it is not cluttered with misinformation that has proven nothing, is going nowhere and has a probability quotient that measures in the negative.
TM, you said, "Of course, if you have no understanding of evolution, your decision to choose to believe in creation is biased and uninformed, hence invalid as a reason to choose."
There is no "of course" about it. As I just expressed, no one really has an understanding of "Evolution". Everything presented to the general public as fact is NOT FACT, but assumption.
Take the 'tree of life' for instance. This has a one celled organism at the bottom and a man at the top of the tree, with branches showing the various animals and creatures, supposedly evolved from one another. I say supposedly because this tree has no leaves.
Do you see it?
A Genealogical Tree has leaves on the branches. There is the human in question at one end, then the parents of this person, then the grandparents, but each branch has leaves, provided that the parents had more than one child and each child had children. As the person digs deeper and discovers more members of the family, be they alive or dead, the branches and the leaves grow thicker, more full.
But where are the leaves on the 'evolutionary tree'? There are none. Why? Because there are no links. There is no evidence of anything. No matter if the Scientific effort is archaeological, genetic, biological, mathematical and so on.
Troubled Man, I won't respond to anything else. I will let your comment speak for itself. For it seems to me, that in your mind, despite the lack of credibility in your statements, certain people have no right to express their views publicly.
GOD BLESS you.
I really, really pray HE DOES.Not forgetting some swimming crickets just found in caves in South America.
Hi Cascoly,
You said, "the 'she-who-uses-nazis-automatically-loses debate rule. hitler also was a vegetarian - so what? this is an elementary error in logic"...
I have never heard of this rule. If it exists, this must mean a rule book exists. Point me to it. I want to read the standard for myself.
If this is a rule you have followed for a particular reason, please share how the rule came about. I'm interested.
You also said, "but what's really funny is that the doctor you mention, Semmelweiss, was a Jew, not a christian!!!!!"
Sorry Cascoly....
I was not referring to Dr. Semmel Weiss.
The man I am referring to was not Jewish. Although, a Jewish Doctor implementing applications of cleanliness would not surprise me at all. Perhaps, this mode of operation cannot be attributed to just one person.
The individual I am referring to was a Christian. And, the man who I am referring to realized the need to employ tactics of cleanliness after reading the Book of Leviticus. That is a Book in The Bible.
I will not provide his name. Keep looking. You may discover what I mentioned is not a figment of my imagination, nor is it inaccurate fact. My information is correct.
I appreciate your comment and your participation.
GOD BLESS you.Hi Cascoly...
You said, " it's like saying abel was a farmer so therefore he's responsible for modern agricultural techniques"
Sorry, the analogy you provide and my example are as far from one another as east is from the west, not speaking globally... In other words, the two shall never meet.
GOD BLESS you.
Hey Cascoly,
I'm back to prove my humanity...
Regarding Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis... You are right. He was Jewish. Not Christian. Semmelweis was in fact the individual to whom I was referring. I went back to double-check my resource and discovered my mistake.
You see... I am willing to admit my mistakes.
GOD BLESS you.
You see, I didn't remember his full name.
Hi Katheenkat.
You said, "I think the underlying problem here is people are putting "Scientific Theories" and "Beliefs" in the same basket."
Good solid point.
You should present this fair argument to those who use the theory Evolution to disprove the existence of GOD.
GOD BLESS you.Awesome conclusion. Thank you for this comment.
GOD BLESS you.
Hi Paul K. Francis...
You say, "And this does not at all diminish the presence of God in my life or my trust in Christ Jesus. It's a beautiful thing!"
Thank you so very much for your comment. It's valid. I appreciate that you continue to have "trust in CHRIST JESUS". That is "a beautiful thing".
Unfortunately, my observations lean me toward believing that those who believe in Evolution eventually end up disbelieving in GOD. However, there is no logical reason behind this phenomenon, other than the inspiration behind the theory. (But that is another subject entirely.)
Also... the reason I posted this thread was to give evidence to the theory that there are not many individuals who know why they believe in Evolution, as there is no factual evidence to prove the veracity of the theory. Yet my proposal that blind faith undergirds the decision has been rejected, for the most part. If I am correct, then the position is based on "blind faith".
Since no one has offered a Scientific FACT to prove the absolute nature of Evolution as opposed to the hypothetical nature supported by a lot of studies, I remain convinced, most people don't know why they believe in Evolution... other than, having heard, followed, examined or imagined there is solid evidence supporting this theory, Either that, or they don't want to be considered ignorant for believing the alternative. As far as I can tell, no one here has actually provided SOLID EVIDENCE to support the view.
Hence... in all the posts directed at me, IMMUTABLE PROOF was not provided, only links highlighting the studies related, studies promoting, studies undergirding, studies hoping to discover something... which I can find on my own without any help... if I am so inclined.
Many of these studies are handsomely supported by tax dollars granted through Governments, that love the idea of eliminating GOD from the equation of life. So, those Scientists that do not agree with Evolution or believe otherwise are belittled, ostracized, exiled, and even mocked.
Those factors do not make Evolution true though. This is my point.
GOD BLESS you...Gentlemen, you forget... I started this thread and I asked you to provide proof for your reasons to believe in Evolution. You have not.
Disappearinghead,
You say: "So you close your eyes to all the evidence and links provided to you..."
The links provided PROVED NOTHING. They are links that present findings of the studies, but NOT EVIDENCE... not FACTUAL EVIDENCE.
i can do an experiment (and have) complete with 'hypothesis, objective, observations and conclusions" but that doesn't make anything FACT... this would only show what I think based on the variables at hand, based on the elements available and the circumstances at my disposal, based on utensils used, based on number of the same results and the number of the repeated experiment. Without CONSTANTS the experiment remains a project in assumption.
With the studies in Evolution the MAJOR COMPONENTS are missing. That FIRST LIFE from NOTHING is not available, has never been created in a Scientific experiment and cannot be LINKED TO ANY OTHER LIVE CREATURE on the face of the earth.
You say, "yet you singularly fail to present eny evidence for intelligent design or creationism (whichever one you support)."
What evidence would you like? Would you like me to say I believe in CREATIONISM... that GOD CREATED THE EARTH, HUMANKIND and EVERY LIVING CREATURE on the face of this planet, that I Believe IN FAITH, notwithstanding that I have no tangible evidence, [i]BECAUSE I DO HAVE EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE of HIS EXISTENCE. And, since HE IS REAL to me, based on my personal experiences, I choose to also believe what THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HIM CREATING THIS EARTH.
There you have it. I printed it all out. That is what I believe, based on the evidence of my personal experiences, that I would never place on this Forum or on a board such as this because there are so many individuals who are just living to mock people like me that the effort would be pointless. However... I KNOW what I KNOW. I have PROOF for what I know. I do not care who would make fun of me for my position. Especially, since the THREAD IS NOT ABOUT me stating a position.
I asked someone, anyone, who is A BELIEVER in EVOLUTION TO STATE ONE IMMUTABLE FACT PROVING this theory deserves loyalty and a following.
What I have learned is: there are many people here who may know how to read, but cannot answer a question, or respond to a request.
No one has satisfied my curiousity.
Troubled Man....
I don't know why I like you despite all the biting ways you try to sidetrack me, or make me appear ignorant.
I do though. Believe in Evolution if you like. Be an Atheist if you like, but won't you please be honest... with yourself?
You mock me and my position, my ability to understand, my sense of discernment, but in your heart you know, though you cannot, and will not admit it. ... you have not responded to my request. No one here has.
Troubled Man... I want to thank you for complimenting me. You probably don't see how you have, but you have.
GOD BLESS you, Sir.
GOD BLESS you, Richly, Abundantly and Above all you ever imagined. I pray this, in JESUS' NAME. Amen.Hmmmm. Troubled Man.
I keep hoping, thinking, wondering... if there is a glimpse of generousity or goodness in you. I know the low rating attached to your name does not reflect your capacity to write. You write very well.
Too bad you use words to wound and to diminish others.
GOD BLESS you, Troubled Man.
Somewhere deep inside, I know there is a heart of flesh. I pray that heart of stone that you present in your commentaries will not cause you to lose out on the BEST GOD HAS for you.Hi Autumn18,
You are very kind.
Thing is, Evolution and Creationism are two very different theories. One is bent on denying the existence of the other.
Yes. I believe GOD Created this earth. I also believe HE CREATED the entire Universe. My original question: "what basis do you have for your belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'? " has not been answered by any one individual.
What I have been given, over and over are links that support the theory, or links supporting a study related to Evolution. That is not what I asked for, because I am perfectly capable (despite all the comments otherwise) to find my own links supporting Evolution.
However, I am not in the business of believing other people, no matter how simple or complex minded they might be, unless they give me a good reason to consider the concept they have shared.
Do you know that Charles Darwin himself said that if evidence for his theory wasn't discovered in one hundred years, the theory should be thrown out?
Autumn... I am a good deal older than you are, I think. That doesn't make me smarter. I think this means I have had a good deal more life experiences than you have. More than that, there are topics I have studied that would shake your core.
That is why I won't conform to 'theory' that has no substantial evidence and is even refuted by those who have the scholarly discipline and capacity to make an informed (if informed means structural facts) decision.
I didn't place Dr. Lumsden's conversion in my OP to prove that one intelligent man changed his mind based on FACTS he noted. I placed that there to remind people that everyone is RESPONSIBLE to FIND OUT FOR SELF what is real.
I believe you understand that just because EVERYONE says some "thing" is true, that does not make that "thing" true. The fact that many, many scholars and Scientists have been content to give up their career as a supporters of Evolution (because those that rule the Educational Systems have decreed Evolution SHALL BE PROMOTED ~ and if someone will not agree, then that person is exiled from the System) because once they realized the TRUTH, they could NOT support a lie... this fact should create a hunger in those who have never really studied the concept, to know the facts.
There are millions of individuals that would do anything (if necessary) in order to become rich and famous, and loved by all. That is just human nature. Yet, many individuals with the scholarly capacity to be/remain rich and famous chose to give up everything they have, fame, position, money, prestige, friends and more once they realized what they were supporting was FALSE.
Evolutionists are supported by Governmental Grants. They are given status in Universities. They are exalted in the eyes of their peers. But the desire to be part of the 'acceptable group' does not make a theory true.
Common acceptance does not make a study, or the theory TRUE.
I am repeatedly mocked because I believe GOD CREATED the earth. But, that does not make what I believe untrue.
Everyone will know the TRUTH in the end. For that reason, if I am wrong, I will find it out, won't I?
I'm not hurt by the comments directed at me. I am okay with the accusations of my not having researched the subject. While I am not a medical or science scholar, I am more than capable of researching a subject thoroughly. I don't have to prove what I have found. Neither do I provide links (for the most part) to those who disagree with me. Why? Because there are a hundred million (or more) websites on the internet. LINKS can be found to support any train of thought. That does not make the supportive presentations true.
I don't have misconceptions. I believe what I believe based on evidence that cannot be refuted... evidence that I would not share on this thread or Forum. Why?
I'm sure you know the answer.
You also said, "I understand that you are saying that there isn't 100% proof of evolution therefore it's blind faith. There is so much more to it that anyone can research that makes it more than blind faith."
Not necessarily so.
By the same token that I am free to believe what I believe, and so is everyone else, there is great value in considering the facts of every matter.
The problem is, most of us don't have a scientific background so we don't have the intellectual foundations to check the experimental or contextual information that we have been given as evidence. Those that do are quickly shut down because they are kicked out of the discussion.
Therefore:
It is more honest to admit that this subject that has been given the high esteem of a scientific fact is actually just the product of Darwin's imagination, one that everyone who would rather NOT BELIEVE IN GOD can't wait to trust blindly.
There is so much more behind the support of this theory. Most people would not bother or care to research. Time will prove though... those that have agendas that mean to suppress the masses count on the blind faith of those they consider easily distracted and manipulated in order to achieve their goals. Yes. There is so much more behind it all.
GOD BLESS you, Autumn.Creationism is not a theory, but you are somewhat correct in that it denies the existence of evolution, but actually it's the dishonest believers who are the ones doing the denying.
Yes, it has, however your beliefs are causing you to reject everything everyone is saying to you, which you openly admitted...
To say your question hasn't been answered is obviously irrelevant in light of that conviction.
Where did he say that? Provide a source and citation, please. So far, it is obvious that you're misquoting others to support your arguments.
Then, by all means, shake our cores.
Dear Kathleenkat,
I respect your contribution to this thread. You have made some concise and just observations. However, how long do you think it would take some of those who continue to insist that I have not researched my subject to use whatever I share publicly in some derogatory manner?
I'll tell you what. I will pray about sharing with you. Just you. If that is acceptable to you, of course.
GOD BLESS you.Hey there, Twosheds1:
You said, "And with all due respect, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the forum. You shouldn't have posted such a provocative question if you didn't expect to get some grief over it."
I'm not upset over anything that has been posted. Your sentiments are fair, Twoheds1.
You also said, "Present your evidence. If it's valid, we'll accept it. If it is not, then it will be discarded. such is the nature of science."
Some personal experiences are not meant to be shared with everyone.
Thanks for your participation. Your views are appreciated.
GOD BLESS you.
Autumn... I truly appreciate your kind sentiments toward us. She is being watched until stabilized. In the meantime, i continue to BELIEVE GOD WILL keep her safe from any detriment. She is a victim of a debilitating disease. This makes her vulnerable to aggravating circumstances relating to any viral attack you or I would simply put up with for a day or a week.
I am believing she will be home in a few days. In the meantime, I may not be here to respond to posts... such as the last few days worth of posts.
Unless I need a stimulating distraction from harsh realities, that is. (LOL...
)
GOD BLESS you, Sweetheart. Thank you for caring to share your encouragement!
Wow. Hominoids, Neanderthal, Pre-humans... pfhhhh. Wow.
What concepts Pye has.
I love that he goes through a very descriptive introduction speaking about how the 'Evolutionists" can't prove their Darwinistic premise because there is no link... but he does mention how very soon a link will be found.
I agree with that concept for reasons that are very much unlike Pye's. However, there is a lot of information given in his discourse, and I don't have the time to go into a study relating to what he is presenting, to see how feasible, realistic, accurate, plausible it all is... I'm in a really tight season (over the next few weeks/month(s)) ...
However, I can tell you that some of the ideas he's pushing around I have considered, as structures outside those he is postulating.
I so appreciate the information you shared SoManyPaths. Yes. This was a good listen.
I may start up another Thread at some point considering what has been shared in his presentation (not for a long time though...).
GOD BLESS you.
Cascoly, I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you, since you consider my words fairy tales, and you dare not believe anything I write; still, the truth is, evolution is the theory; UFO's and Aliens will prove themselves, despite the lack of documentation in scientific journals. If it's documentation you're looking for, go to the Government. Oh... sorry... the documents they carry in relation to the subject are considered Top Secret. That means you will have to go to those who have first hand evidence. For instance... those who have seen with their own eyes, or experienced with their own i]bodies[/i] the proof that Aliens exist. Among these you will find cases outlined and described in great detail, by Military Leaders, Doctors, Lawyers, Writers, and "the average man, woman and child".
Now, I don't hold to the theory of Aliens, per se. I believe the manifestations individuals have witnessed, or (sadly) experienced, are demonic, not extra-terrestrial. However, they are real, in whichever form they, in time, prove to actually exist. In the meantime, can you and I simply agree to disagree here. You see, this interaction between us, has a tendency to drag. (Not trying to be mean here...)
GOD BLESS you, Sir.No matter. The spiritual dimension exists. People experience it in the physical. Therefore, while some cannot prove what they encounter/experience, others can. In my case, I have many instances where I could prove my experiences, but I'm not willing to share those circumstances with those who mock, or desire to disbelieve. Each instance is personal and valuable to me.
I will not prove to anyone GOD's existence. GOD HAS THE POWER, WISDOM and CAPABILITY to prove HIMSELF to anyone HE WISHES. If HE Chooses not to do so, then HE has a reason. HIS Reason will be much more perfect and just than any purpose or reason I could have; therefore, I leave to HIM the final decision.
Can HE PROVE HIMSELF? Certainly, Will HE? Only HE KNOWS. When HE DOES, the evidence is unmistakable. When HE DOES NOT, HE HAS A REASON. I would never question HIM. HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING.
One thing I do know... GOD DOES not necessarily look at our actions, or listen to the words we shoot out of our mouths or put into writing... perhaps carelessly... GOD DEALS with the heart of man, not the mind or the body; for these carnal attributes are fickle. GOD DEALS with the heart because it is the heart of man where the spirit behind all motivations exist.
GOD BLESS you, Rajpodge!
Related Discussions
- 44
Does God Exist? Proof of God from a Christian's Perspective
A lot of skeptics made the following logical fallacy:Skeptics: Can you prove that God exists? if not, then you are illogical if you believe in a God that you can't prove to be existing! This is the fallacy of "False Delimma" Just because you can't prove a theory or belief, doesn't mean...
- 215
Darwinian evolution is falsified
Darwinian evolution (atheistic evolution) requires 100% of all biological systems to be subject to the mechanisms proposed for evolutionary change, yet the conserved elements are not subject to any of the evolutionary mechanisms. A theory that predicts 100% system change must demonstrate 100% of...
- 24
Mobile & bee cells: evolution problems
hexagonal shape of mobile cells is the most efficient shape.dividing mobile stations by these cells enabled people to communicate easily.scientists got the idea after alot of researches of other shapes capabilities.they decided hexagons are the most suitable geometry to didvide coverage areas into...
- 390
Has Darwin's Evolution Theory clouded our judgments
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
- 118
Are religion and science two complementary parts of our knowledge?
So I borrowed this idea from Misha to start a new thread.For me, I can give one particular instance where I think science and religion/spirituality are complementary, as crossing each other's boundaries. When I think of energy; where Kirlian photography has proven the existence of the energy...
- 770
Evolutionism the greatest story ever told
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...