Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?
The bible says not to lie. Why aren't they following the bible? Why do they feel the need to defend God? Or is it really defending their very narrow worldview?
by the way, evolution doesn't directly attack god anyway
Yes, this is true. As a kid I told myself, God made the world in seven days but who tells us how long His days were? Maybe His day does have a duration of million years... Do we know it? In the Bible nobody tells us the details.By the way time is relative.
Is attacking going to change the way evolution works? If not then what's the problem?
just annoys me how hypocritical they are, and also confuse people to in order to suck them into religion
evolution was invented to confuse people and try to do away with GOD
Then tell us why scientists would go to so much trouble to make all of it up. And how this great conspiracy has been passed on on to every scientist in the world. How are they all made to lie about this and who is making them do so.
Can't wait for your detailed answer.Its there life work,they make alot of money from this,there collages make alot of money!why should they teach something they cant prove?I know they have alot of big words that make them sound smart,but its all B.S P.S darwiw was a christian til his little girl got sick and he prayed and ask God to heal her and she died,and then came the big lie
Who pays them money to lie about evolution? I want facts, not just your opinion. Can you back up your words with facts, or do you indeed fit the title of this thread.
If the scientists knew creation was true, wouldn't they be afraid to lie about god's work? If they knew creation was true, then this would mean they believed in god.
So, who is paying them dude? Give me some facts or else you are full of BS and just telling lies for Jesus like this thread is talking about. And the Darwin BS you posted has been proven false so many times only the uneducated still believe it.Scientists get their money from universities and federal grants. I know this from having worked at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Now there is an interesting fact that goes with this. The money is based on past results or--if an unproveable (note that word) theory--the best argument thereon. Remember, Dr. Josef Mengele committed his horrible acts on prisoners in Hitler's Germany by the same standard. How did he keep the money coming in? The same way they do today, by falsifying this or that point. Why do you think that there are so many medicines being pulled off the shelves these days?
Because scientists' careers depended on them when they were approved. I think I have far more experience in academia than you folks do. Thank goodness, I live in the United States of America, where I can express any opinion--no matter how crazy YOU may think it is--without any expectation of being ridiculed, like you have done to me from word one.It's sad how people blindly follow science without knowing the complete motivation for results.
Well, your experience in academia apparently didn't affect your knowledge to any great extent. If you really think all grants for research in genetics and evolution is for a preordained result then we have nothing further to discuss.
I'm sure there are abuses in the system, there always are, but to promote a conspiracy of the magnitude you are suggesting is really sad. Who controls the worlds best scientists? Who is making up all of the evolutionary data, some even laymen may understand?
Give us names of immensely rich backers so intent on keeping Creation secret.
I am wondering whether it is the logic and reasoning side of the brain that dominates. You need that to describe what is happening in the creative side of the brain. So perhaps they are trying to prove what the creative process is perceiving.
A statement from Richard Lewontin one of your evo scientist - We take the side of science in spite of patent absurdity of some of its constructs,in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific commuinty for unsubstaintiated justo-stroies,because we have pryor commintment,a commintment to materialism.It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world,but,on the contrary,that we are forced by our priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investagation and a set of concepts that produse material explanations,no matter how counterintuitive,no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover,that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a devine foot in the door !!!
Great Come Back ! I wish to Hell I knew what it meant ! I've tried to read it twice and it makes even less sense the second time.
You really do need to expand the literature you read, no one here is saying sciece has all the answers, to say so would be absurd given that we strive only to seek answers to things we do not know.
The study of Evolution is only one small branch of Natural science and like all things cannot be looked at in isolation.
Instead of seeking ways to belittle science and things you know little about why not open your mind to the wonders it has already created and the answers it seeks to questions way beyond our comprehension.Allow me to translate.
"Faith-based beliefs are bad.
Science is a faith-based belief.
Therefore science is bad and is lies."Mark you must get a better brand of Christmas Crackers !
no matter what the facts say they are going preach evolution and keep creation out! And no matter what you think I do not hate science,much of science is good and helps us out in many ways , but if facts dont fit throw them out !
I will suggest to you as I suggested on this thread earlier on, pop into YouTube and look up David Attenborough, doesn't matter which link you pick some of his latest documentaries on Life are extremely good.
Just listen, don't judge, just watch and listen if that what you call preaching then there really is no hope for you.
A gentler more sincere teacher you will not find, he doesn't preach he explains, his mission is one of peace all he wants to do is educate in an attempt to save the life on this planet...all of it.
If trying to understand the Evolution of life and by so doing saving it is in your book a crime or a sin against your God then I guess I have no more to say to you or the rest of your denial buddies.
you say creationist lie to attack evolution,what about all the lies evolutionist come up with to attack God,here are 6 {archaebraptor} {piltdown man} {lucy} {neandertal man} {java man} {orce man} and many many more
Somehow, I think I would rather trust the scientist's objective finding, that have gone through peer review, rather than except your findings, which is based on Goddunnit, and nonsensical conclusions...and ultimately spouted from the mouths of the obviously unlearned of the population.
Love those stupid creation sites, don't you? Where are you from, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, or somewhere else in the Bible Belt?
Excuse my ignorance but are you saying the Bible Belt is a Place ?
All these years I was under the impression that it was something they wore to prevent their brains falling out of their backside !Unfortunately yes Merlin, a place of ignorance for most who live there, as proven by the creationists who are indoctrinated from a very young age into a variety of close minded churches. You can see for yourself how adamantly they refuse to recognize proven facts because their preachers tell them to.
Take Roy and David for example. Neither of them are able to post without a plethora of grammatical and spelling mistakes in their statements but presume to be taken seriously by those who know better.
They go to these laughable Creation sites and fully accept the proven wrong quotes from those who work for the sites. They make creationists look so ignorant there is never any chance they will ever be taken seriously by anyone who understands science.
The belt is what they beat those with who do not agree with their primitive nonsense. I should know, I've lived among these ignorant folks all of my life. Imagine how frustrating this is to knowledgeable people.
you boys need a chill pill,everyone of you evos start with the name calling everytime
Not sure you would rcognise a sense of humour if it bit you on the Butt !
Does that mean that a sense of humor suddenly comes to life and develops teeth, (over billions of years, of course)? Once again, proof of evolution!
Evolution obviously frightens you, GT. Why are you so afraid of it? Do you honestly believe, like your friend Roy, scientists all over the world are merely making up their findings just to prove guys like you wrong?
And if so, why are you guys so important to merit such an extremely difficult conspiracy? Do you think scientists with different dating and research methods get together and decide what their independent findings should show?
Just what is their motive for trying to show god doesn't exist when their research shows he does? Think about that for a minute.We need to lighten up a bit here. Where is your sense of humor?
Why would I be down about something so humorous, GT? I'm happy as a dead pig in the sunshine! Now quit stalling and answer the questions.
I think the real belief of many if not most scientists is that nothing exists outside of what is observable. They start with the evidence that this universe is here and seek to try to explain it totally by natural means. The trouble with this is, the evidence up to this point has not backed them up. Life itself has not been explained by purely natural means. The fossil records cannot explain the changing of one species into another. Because of their irrational belief that all faith in the supernatural is foolish, they cannot admit that the complexity and order of this vast universe points to a complex and vast mind that they will never grasp.
And this is enough to make all of the most noted scientists lie? I'm sorry GT, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Think about it. You are taking the stance god created everything and are afraid to see if anything else was responsible.
Scientists seek truth, you seek to deny the truth. Your poor reason for the worlds scientists having to lie is pathetic at the very best. Try something else, a child would not accept this, much less educated adults. what kind of science education do you have that you can tell brilliant people they are wrong?
Honestly, are you never embarrassed having to make such poor excuses for your faith?Are you never embarrassed by your lack of reading skills.
I never said that Scientists lie. I said that their world view completely dismisses the obvious evidence for design. They don't come from a place of "I don't know" as you have said. They come from a place of I know for sure that this observable universe is all that there is. This may not be stated but it is to be inferred by all that they do and say, especially on the origins of life.
Klaus Dose, the biochemist who is considered one of the foremost experts in this area, has said:
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origins of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confession of ignorance."
Yet these same men still insist that there absolutely is no god. They deny that maybe, just maybe, this observable universe is'nt all there is to reality.Actually I'm quite proud of my reading skills, GT. I've read over 10,000 books in my lifetime. Everything from science to history and the arts. I've even read several versions of the novel you worship.
Why do you keep putting up these guys from creationists sites who can be found nowhere else of any consequence. And not only that, what they say is usually taken out of context, as is this case.
The quote you used was in reference to a certain type of protein used in an experiment which caused a type of life to be formed. He also said he expected a better solution to life creation would be discovered in the future. Have you read the work this was associated with?
And you don't say "who" considers him to be a foremost expert in this area, unless it is only the creation sites where his quote is to be found. You keep giving me these guys who can't be found associated with any respected scientific organization and expect what? Give me something factual, not just something you wish to be true. Pretty sad, GT!
Answer this-Do you believe dinosaurs were around during the time of the supposed great flood?And yet the point is still made that Science is baffled as to how life began. Unless they just created a cell recently.
No, they are not baffled at all, GT. They will eventually succeed despite ignorance and superstition fighting them all the way.
You are no different than those who charged early scientists with heresy when they announced the sun wasn't the center of the universe. They were threatened with death from your early counterparts. Those men of god look foolish and ignorant now, don't they? But you probably still think the sun is the center of the universe. That's as true as other stuff you stake your soul on.
What about the dinosaurs now?And once they figure this out, then they can tell us how the matter got here in the first place that started this life. Unless it just suddenly appeared out of nowhere as well.
And I will tell you where the dinosaurs were at the beginning when you can show me the missing link between man and a lower species.That's right, they will tell us. But you will undoubtedly cry, HERESY, just like your fore-bearers. LOL! Why are you afraid to answer about the dinosaurs, GT?
Don't you know what you think about the dinosaurs, GT? Oh that's right, you'll need to go to your creationists sites to find out what you think. LOL!
There is no missing link, by the way. Who told you there was?In order for man to evolve from a lower species there must be transitional species. What do you call it? Or maybe you should go to your peer reviewed Scientific papers to answer the question for us that are uninformed.
There are several of our past ancestors documented, GT. You didn't know this? Now, what about those dinosaurs? What are you afraid of? Unless you don't know what to think, and it is okay to say you don't know. There is no shame in it.
No, you've given me absolutely nothing as far as proof for anything you claim and refuse to answer a simple question which requires no proof at all on your part. Why should I waste my time when you show such fear of giving me your opinion on dinosaurs?
I don't believe you are a preacher of any kind if you are so afraid of giving your opinion on this simple matter. Why are you so afraid to answer why you are so afraid. LOL!You still haven't given me any evidence of the so called fossil records that show the transitions between a lower species and man. As far as I've heard anything that is so called proof is merely fragments which are open to interpretation. Some of them have been exposed as frauds. That is my limited knowledge. Give me your wisdom.
By the way, since you are so anxious to get my humble opinion on the dinosaurs, I cannot say for sure because Genesis doesn't say anything specifically about them. But since God created everything, he created them as well. Some even believe that since they were supposedly reptiles, they began as small creatures and grew over long periods of time into larger creatures. Reptiles, as you may know, keep growing as long as they live. The Bible indicates that before the flood, life expectancy was a lot greater. That may have been true of the reptiles as well.
But just like your transitional man, all of this is speculation and I will not die for this explaination that I have given you. I only know that all life demands a life giver.So you don't know if they were here at the time of the flood or not? I take this to mean you believe as most creationists that the world began in 4004 BC? My,my,my!
Actually, the date 4004 B.C. comes from Bishop James Ussher. I don't think most creationists would go along with his date any more because he used some faulty reasoning in his calculations. And in case you think that the Bible says this or leads you to believe this in any way, it doesn't. Where you are correct, however, is that most creationists believe that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions. And as you may know, some don't agree with the young earth belief.
Yes I know, GT. I think it was to have been at 9:30 PM on a Thursday or some such nonsense. But I have to give the bishop a break because unlike today's creationists, he had no means to know any better. He didn't get to see actual facts and then refuse to believe them.
Do you think willful ignorance is a sin, GT?
If I proved evolution was real would it make any difference to you in your beliefs? I would guess no, but tell me if I'm wrong about this. If you proved a god existed I would believe it.If it were possible to prove evolution from one species to another was a fact, it would change some beliefs but not my ultimate belief in a creator. This universe and all of its glory is a wonderful testimony to a higher intelligence, no matter how He chose to create it.
Hey GT,
Any idea who Hezekiah was ?
Any idea what laws he laid down round about 700 BC ?
Or is he just one of our myths ?It amazes me how many have tried to prove the characters in the Bible to be made up people over the years. And time after time archaeology has proven the person who tried to prove these things wrong. There is much we don't know about the past. That is why we need archaeology.
Not sure that actually answered the questions I asked...
I didn't say Hezekiah was a myth I asked you if you knew who he was and what lawas he passed ...Just to let you know, I am not ignoring your questions. I am just busy and this forum seems to take up a lot of time. So I will answer this question now and your other on the Neanderthals later. Although I know you already know this stuff and are looking for another way to discredit something.
Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz and the fourteenth king of Judah. He became king at the age of 25 and immediately began to make sweeping religious reforms to restore the worship of Yahweh, the God of Israel as the Torah of Moses commanded.
The first thing he did was to open the doors of the house of the Lord again. Hezekiah rejuvenated the organization of priests and Levites and their support by the gifts of the people.
He assigned the divisions of priests and Levites, and instructed the priests and Levites to clean the temple, from the common dirt to the abomination of the idolatrous altars that were set up in it so the worship could be reinstated.
Further, he ordered that the people observe the Passover again. The invitation extended to all of the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan to take part in it. This Passover was one such as had not occurred since the days of Solomon.
Hezekiah got rid of all of the idolatrous images in Judah including the brazen serpent. For all of this he was called a good king in the Scriptures.
Encouraged by the prophet Isaiah, the king tried to break Assyria's political dominance, and he also attempted to purify Judah's covenant faith by abolishing the worship of Canaanite religion, and Assyrian gods.Which is a very long winded way of saying he is the man responible for passing "The One God" law, Right ?
Why not just say so ?
They had tried the one God theory a couple of times but the poor simple folk couldn't get their head round it, God would be lonely so there had to me a Mrs. God. And of course they would have lots of little gods and soon they were back to where they'd started.
By the time in got to Rome and the rest of Europe they were much more efficient at this conversion thing, 'Convert or Die!'
They even exported this method to the new world with great sucess it seems. Where all the fanatical splinter groups came from remain an Evolutionary mystery though.
Even early mankind without your so called Missing link is older than that. The Neanderthals, I assume you accept the fact that they lived at one time, are older than that.
Plus if the Biblical version of creation Ala Genesis were remotely feasible that would mean that your God put man and Dinosaurs on the face of the Earth at the same time, strange that in all the Bible that never once gets a mention.
Including good old Noah who I imagine would have needed new shorts if two of every kind of dinosaur turned up on his doorstep. What did he do Pray; Dear God where the *#^% am I going to put them ?
Or maybe this is what caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.... it wasn’t the a meteorite collision 65 million years ago it was the Flood.....!
Way to go GT.... Have to admit you won that Round !!!Merlin - this is what they believe. They think the dinosaurs were turned to oil in the flood by a process known as "rusting."
Seriously.Thanks for explaining that, I worked in the Oil Industry for 25 years and always though those Geologists and Chemist were full of shit...!
So how long ago do you believe the dinosaurs existed---according to creationists?
On many of the Creation vs Evolution debates the creationists refuse to address the dinosaur issue when asked. William F. Buckley was one of these who refused to say anything on the subject. This ought to tell you something about the faith of creationists.. I know of no other question Buckley ever refused to answer.
I actually feel sorry for those who have to explain known scientific facts away with nothing to defend themselves with but "God done it." This thread is a good example of why the title is correct. The obvious lack of education by the proponents of creationism or Intelligent Design on this thread is worse than I ever feared. They proved the point for us.Tha't ashame. William F. Buckley was such an intellect.
The debate is on Youtube and is in 8 parts. The creationists are a trip as usual. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrIIt is amazing how many intellectuals of every age believed in a creator. Maybe you can't just use the umbrella of stupid when referring to believers. Although you still will do this.
And it is no doubt that there are even some as bright as you that accept a creator. Maybe they had a brain tumor or something. That would explain it.Being indoctrinated into religion does strange things to even intelligent people, GT. Especially when children are told at a young age they risk going to hell if they do not believe in god. Surely you cannot argue that children are not affected by this.
You probably experienced it yourself, didn't you?I think you unknowingly put me in the category of an intellectual. If you meant to do this, thank you. If not, then I'll take it as a compliment any way. The answer to your question is I was never frightened of God as a child and I felt that it was nice to have someone so powerful love me.
It is you actually using the umbrella of stupid. I use the word psychotic, of which a person of any IQ could become afflicted.
GodTalk, do you understand what psychosis is? Do you understand what it does to the mind when the object of that delusion is questioned. Do you know that YOU are displaying symptoms of this affliction? Mental disorders can affect anyone.
You have said nothing to support your belief in a childish nonsensical fairytale. This is clearly a bizarre delusion, and anyone, no matter what their IQ, appears to be suffering from some form of psychosis--which is causing the delusions.
I can say that the obvious arrogance of the evolutionary believer is greater than I feared. When asked for transitional records between species, you can't give them. When asked about how matter or energy can be eternal, you just say "it is"- end of discussion. When asked how abiogenesis is even possible, you say: "We're working on it." When it is pointed out that Science has been wrong in the past, you say: "Well it is obvious that we are right now, so there can be no other explaination." And of course Science has determined that there is no need for a god even though the theories that they espouse about the origins of life defy all of the known laws that have been discovered so far in this universe.
It is interesting that you call my beliefs myths, and at the same time have some pretty unbelievable explainations of your own.I just thought of something else. My relationship with my creator is very precious to me. I couldn't imagine living the life of an atheist. To me it would be such a sad existence to think that this life is all there is and my existence is ultimately meaningless. I wish for you the joy that I have knowing I am here for a reason, to bring glory to my God.
And I feel sorry for you for living under the threat of being tortured forever in a flaming pit. That must be a terrible thing to worry about. I am very happy being good on my own without saying I do so because an invisible deity of some sort, is so needy of worship and adulation that he uses extortion to make me be good. A very bored and murderous god, I might add.
And to make it even worse, he/she chooses the most ignorant humans he can find to communicate his words to the other frightened humans. Boy does that make it tough to have much confidence in his ability to judge anyone.
No, even if you saw proof you would deny it. Ye'll heretic at me GT, see how it feels to emulate your infamous predecessors.I'm sorry that you were obviously hurt by religious people, which makes you a bitter man. But I'll leave the name calling to you. There has been enough of it on this site.
Not hurt at all, GT. I was exposed to the same indoctrination. I know what it is like. All religions are the same with the children. It's the same as telling a child about Santa Claus, except they aren't threatened with eternal damnation if they are bad with Santa.
Common men wrote the bible and there is nothing to show any of the authors were inspired by any god other than their saying so. And some of the earlier books were too crazy even for the church. Of course you know that. As a pastor you should know all about how the bible has been edited and re-edited, added to, taken from, until other "god inspired" men (some of the same ones yelling "heretic") decided it was right. Sad but true, GT. Yes the truth and you cannot change, it no matter how much you would like to.
That is theoretical since you haven't shown me any proof yet.
Your cohorts and you prove this almost every post. How are you different than the ones yelling "heretic" GT? Why did those people think the world was flat? Ignorance, religion, or both? It surely wasn't science, was it?
Do you relish being thought of as these men were? Or perhaps you prefer the martyr image.It would seem that you have taken the martyr image against us terrible creationists arguing for proof of your flawed theories.
They are not my theories, GT. Just as you are not god's messenger. If so, give me proof. If you cannot accept the word of the smartest scientists your god ever made, how can you expect me to take your word that god chose you to speak for him? Do you not see my point?
The title God Talk can mean talk about God. I don't claim to have any special revelation from God except what He has given all Christians in the Bible.
Sorry if it offends you to throw a little Bible in but it does say that God uses the foolish to confound the wise. The truth is, it doesn't matter who is giving forth truth, if indeed it is truth. In fact God chooses some people just to show that wisdom doesn't come from those of superior intellect. It comes from Him. He, as you implied, gives these men wisdom to use for good or for evil.
You may be enamored with these men of superior intellect. But they are just as capable of being wrong as everyone else. That is why peer review is needed. And could it be that peer review can be flawed if most Scientists have a certain world view that is exactly the same: That the supernatural cannot exist?
Is self delusion happiness ? Just a question.
It would appear that in this statement you have answered all our questions for us, you need your belief to give your life some sort of meaning.
On the other hand we non believers do not, happy are we to live our lives and do the best we can with what we have without the need of a religious crutch or someone church telling us how to think or act.
You will never know the freedom we experience with our minds open to all the wonders and possibilities of this world and the Universe beyond without the encumbrance of constantly looking over our shoulders to see if the churchmen approve.
You believe in some sort of afterlife, I do not, if I’m wrong than let us meet there and I will happily listen to all your “I told you so’s until the day Hell freezes over !
Of course if I am right then I will not be granted the same privilege, hardly seems fair does it ?
How long did it take men to learn the magic of flight, GT? Your ilk said man would never land on the moon. They also said the earth was flat, the sun was the center of the universe, and so on through all sorts of nonsense they weren't intelligent enough to understand.
And it was because people just like you could not comprehend any of these things being true. "The earth is not round, these men are heretics and should be killed for blaspheming god!" You would have been right along side of them ready to throw the first stone, GT. I know this and so do you.
They called for the death of intelligent men for the same reason you don't believe in evolution. Because it isn't in your book. I hope if there is a god he will forgive you for trying to stop knowledge from being disseminated among humankind. That is the worst sin of them all.If you study the history of modern Science, it was actually made possible by a Judeo-Christian world view. I know that you will deny this but I can show it is true. I just have to go to bed now. I don't know where you are living but here it is very late. I'll answer your anticipated tirade on this statement tomorrow.
Yes, it is late here too. I have things to do tomorrow and I know you have children to indoctrinate at church. Get to them early before they learn to think for themselves. Look how good it worked for you.
And answer when you please. I will not be addressing you again. Good luck on ignoring future scientific discoveries, I think you can do it if you just keep your mind closed as you've proven you can. If I see you in heaven I'll know I was very sinful and was sent to my idea of hell.
Don't like to contradict but the God Squad said the Earth was the centre of the Universe and the Sun and Stars orbited us.
500 years ago it was Copernicus who postulated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It was Galileo's championing of Copernicus that caused all the trouble when the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture.
That was in 1615, I believe there are still people alive today that believe the Sun goes rount the Earth.....
Sorry to inject real Scientific facts into this thread I know how it annoys people....!By the way, what people like me are you talking about? By and large, the majority of the greatest earliest Scientific minds were men who believed in a god. Including Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.
Actually it was a small error on Randy's part I was correcting.
But since you bring god into the equation, yet again... Back in the 16th and 17th century Europe everybody believed in god... or at least in public they did. Everybody went to church and had to be seen to go...
The alternative was too painful... such was the disproportionate power of the church... nothing.. including the truth was allowed to stand in their way.
No problem, Merlin! I was half asleep when I wrote that and knew better. Thanks!
You know, I keep waiting for either side to offer proof of anything. Scientists should be able to offer proof, therefore if you believe in evolution, you should be able to offer your proof as any good scientist can and will if asked for their proof of their theory. On the other hand, since creationism is a matter of spirituality and is therefor faith based, the only proof a believer in creationism should be asked to provide would be what they base their faith on, all of which can't be proven by scientific means. So until both sides find common ground and respect for the others beliefs, all y'all are going to do is what you've been doing, fighting a war of words with neither side winning.
I would tend to agree; however, I don't think the "proof" can necessarily be equivalent. Religion is based on faith, not "proof" in the scientific sense.
I'm pretty sure that's what I said in other words, but still the same idea.
That comes in handy when there is no proof at all of a god or gods. There is plenty of proof for evolution, you just can't understand it, or want to for that matter. Because if you understand it, you would have to admit it is true or pretend to not understand it.
What would it take for you to believe the scientists are right about the theory of evolution? Any or all of you?Yes, I don't understand the Theory of Evolution. I guess I never studied it, didn't grow up in a household with it, and just plain don't understand it. You know what else I don't have a clue about Abiogenesis, stabilizing directional disruptive selection, or Left handed Amino Acids. The Theory of Evolution is like telling me I need a Theory on Global Warming, but I guess you believe in that too, because science told you so. If I'm starving I don't need a Theory to tell me I'm going to do what needs to be done to get something to eat. What would it take for you to dis-believe the scientists about the Theory of Evolution? Don't worry, you won't ever have to, because when they are proven wrong, they will just adjust the Theory. That's the great thing about a Scientific theory, it's ever changing.
What would it take for you to believe it, then? If you understand the theory, that is. Get technical, if you like.
It would take a lot of reese's peanut butter cups, which originally evolved from the reese's pieces. The next time your eating a peanut butter cup, and a guy named Reese walks by and says give me that you better hand it over.
What timing! I was just looking at this on Wikipedia less than 10 minutes ago. I'm serious! But you have the progression wrong. The cups came first! Not lying about just reading this right before your post.
I don't know about that. The company was sold to Hershey's in 1963 I think!
I meant the pieces. I think those came out in the late 70's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese%27s_ … utter_cups
Read 'em an weep!I understand that, this is what I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese%27s_Pieces
I wasn't implying that you were wrong about Reec'es peanut butter cups coming out before pieces. It was just a joke..you know ha ha. I didn't realize you were going to try and turn something so trivial into a pissing contest.Yes, I wasn't seriously arguing about candy! But I was serious about just reading about it a few minutes before you posted concerning the candy! Perhaps I am psycho....er,.. I mean psychic!
But I can pee a long way!
So admitting to total ignorance on practically all subjects including Evolution and Global warming this gives you the right to have an opinion and comment Why ?
I suppose you are one of those that can see no correlation between the dramatic increase in world population, the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests and the current state of the planets upper atmosphere.
That’s a great philosophy for a happy life, stay ignorant and there’s nothing to worry about. Now I understand.The right to have an opinion? Because I'm in America, on an American website dude, and I have the right to free speech. Yes, I am also one of those who can see no major correlation. I don't need a Theory to tell me the Earth is going to get hot and cold. It would do that whether we were here or not. I also find it interesting that some individuals believe in evolution, but not Global Warming and vice versa. Scientists tell us that the Theories are correct, so why have any doubts abut either?
Dear me. I think you have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately your opinion is basically nonsense to defend your religious beliefs and will be ignored by all but people of your ilk who do not understand the vested interests that propagate the "arrogance" of thinking 7 billion humans cutting down all the trees and burning all the fossil fuels could make a difference to the planet and there is a Invisible Super Daddy in the sky that means you can continue to consume as you please.
If it will be ignored, why did you feel the need to respond? Impact on the earth, yes. To the degree proclaimed by the current cash cow, no. Consume as I please, no. Find a balance, yes.
Odd. I will continue to attempt to educate you and ignore your nonsense. That clear now? As you obviously did not understand.
Good to know you throw out the biblical "go forth and multiply" and do not think god gave you "dominion over."
And I am glad you consider yourself more capable than all scientists - and know what impact 7 billion people is having.
Did god tel u in 2 your head?I have no need for someone with a hubris attitude who is not formally versed in a subject to attempt to educate me. I prefer to learn from educators who are models of chivalry and valor. I'm no more capable than any other man. I just don't blindly believe in science like you choose to do.
Rather than taint this thread with a disagreement about Global Warming, there is already a thread about it here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63461I understand you are not interested in learning anything - I got that already. You have made it abundantly clear. Valor? I am not valorous? Oh you think I am a coward? How odd - I only ever get called a coward on the Internet by people who hide behind an anonymous user name.
Oh, I think you misunderstood, I'm interested in learning. I don't really notice anything too dangerous on the internet that requires you to be valorous. Valor is a step above courage. If something doesn't apply to you, just ignore it.
Nothing you say applies to me. Especially your veiled personal insults. No wonder Christians cause so many wars.
If nothing applies to you then ignore it like you stated in your original post to me. I wasn't insulting you at all. It's sad that you see it as an insult or personal attack anytime someone disagrees with, or doesn't care about what you have to say.
Yes, Christians cause so many wars, and no one else does at all. You're a riot.No - I will continue to try and educate you, despite the veiled personal insults. They do not bother me because I know you have been taught not to develop ethics and morals. As a self professed Christian, you have no moral compass to guide you. I will try and help you develop one.
At least we agree Christians cause a lot of wars.
Or do you think that is acceptable because some non-christians cause wars as well? Odd. I hear that argument a lot from Christians.
They do not need to be peaceful people because Pol Pot was an atheist.
Of course you have a right to both free speech and an opinion. Many people in your country and mine have fought to maintain that right, I'm one of them. Many have died for those rights.
Although perhaps I should have asked if you think you have an automatic and moral right to publicly voice that opinion after an admission of total ignorance on the subjects under debate ?
Just a thought !Do you have an automatic and moral right to publicly voice your opinions on Theories you had no part in formulating? The "admission of total ignorance on the subjects under debate " was a joke dude.
All I have to say is that you are assuming way too much from what little I did say. It's actually rather funny to see the evolutionists doing exactly what they accuse the creationists of doing. There is phyiscal evidence that may or may not prove evolution in the end, and for believers in creationism, there is also spiritual evidence that may or may not prove creationism in the end. I find it so odd that you would assume I know nothing about evolution and can't understand it just because I haven't jumped on your band wagon. Very strange that.
I assume nothing and you ignored the question.
And you are not biased, are you?
If you understood the theory of evolution, it would aid you immensely in giving an informed opinion on the subject.
You cannot see scientific proof if you don't know what you are looking for. Can you understand this?
Australopithecus Afarensis, from 3.9 to 3 million years ago.
Australopithecus Africanus, from 3 to 2 million years ago.
Homo Habilis, from 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago.
Homo Erectus, from 1.8 to 0.3 million years ago.As I said in another post, the evidence for the supposed transitional fossils from lower species to man are extremely sparse fragments and are open to interpretation. Many of the so called transitional species have been faked and discredited altogether. Science, to prove their transitional theory, have a long way to go. And if, as I believe, the transitions aren't there, they are chasing the wind.
I assume in your humble opinion this includes Neanderthals as well, perhaps you may wish to enlighten us how come between
1- 4% of modern man's DNA is Neanderthal in origin ?one to four percent really isn't much if I am to believe, as my professor says, that we share over 90 percent of our DNA with a banana. Does that mean we are descended from bananas too! lol It would seem to me that an entity that could create everything that is would naturally create things with matching DNA for the creation to eat. I mean, how else would the created beings manage to survive otherwise? Just curious, you know, just learning or trying to anyways, so I'm just saying>>>>>>>>>.
It is really interesting about those Neaderthals isn't it.
Scientists keep having to upgrade their status as they find out that they were not the sub-human species that they were originally thought to be. They have found out that they had musical instruments and also that they had some human-like burial rituals. And now they are seen to be living right beside our ancestors as well. Not only that but they even mated with them.
The bottom line is they were descendants of Adam and Eve just like you and me. Rats and dogs can't mate. Cows and pigs can't mate. That is genetically impossible because they are of different species. The so-called Neanderthal man, was just that- He was a man. Just like we have variety in the human species today, there was variety back then as well.
From what I have read, there are people living today that have DNA farther away from the average than the DNA of the Neanderthal. If we follow the logic of some Scientists, maybe some people living today should be classified as a different species.
By the way, some of the earlier scientists thought that these Neanderthals might have had rickets which could possibly account for their seemingly distorted features.The World according to GodTalk, and what a strange world it must be, Neanderthal man is descended from Adam and Eve. I’ll bet the real established church love you for that one !
For your information DNA studies have proved that we and the Neanderthals had a common ancestor about half a million years ago but other than that the two species are not related, at best that makes us distant cousins. Or are you trying to say that Adam and Eve is that common ancestor ?
For the last 10,000 years of their existence, Neanderthals shared Europe with modern humans, ( formerly known as Cro-Magnons), and apparently we led fairly similar hunter-gatherer scavenger lifestyles.
You don’t get any points for pointing out to me they must have interbred because I told you that and gave it away by saying we shared some DNA.
Your point that scientists keep modifying and updating their thoughts and theories is what I would call a privileged glimpse at the blindingly obvious since that’s what scientists do all the time. It’s called progression, as new discoveries are made, new facts found it’s possible that it will effect what was previously thought to be true and so unashamedly we update, amend and move forward. It’s what we do !
In a way it’s what this and hundreds of other threads have been all about. We challenge what is around us, we seek out the facts and yes not all of our thoughts and opinions will be correct but we adapt as we learn and move on.
What I and many others have tried to point out to you is we do this.... Creationists do not, you just try to justify what was, by moving the goal posts, leave a few bits out and say things like, “Well that’s not what they meant to say...!”
You just gave us a first class demonstration above with that ridiculous assumption that we are all descended from Adam and Eve. In your book the Creation of everything happened only a few thousand years ago.
Science has given you a Geological Time line that says you’re off by several million years.
Please don’t feel the need to respond, I tire of this nonsense and plan my return to the real world. Believe what you want makes little difference to me although it saddens me that you will undoubtedly continue to spread the word according to GodTalk to a younger and more susceptible audience whose poor lives you will blight.It continually amazes me how all of the things that Science uses for dating things can never be proven. You can tell me something is millions of years old and how can I or anyone else dispute it? There is no one that can go back millions of years ago and say, "Hey, you are right on the money!" or "Hey, you missed it by a century!" We just have to take the Scientist's word that their dating methods are accurate. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the method that they are using today to come to all of these conclusions. Or are you merely accepting by faith what the men of Science are telling you? The truth is, the methods used to date things is based upon several faulty assumptions. Since you won't check this out for yourself, you will continually live in a world dominated by your cultlike faith in Science.
By the way, I am shocked that you think that I am living in my own world with the theories I have stated. These are not original with me. I'm surprised you've never heard all of this before, being so enlightened as you are.
So does this pitiful rant prove that your silly book is the answer? NO!
Should we take the word of a nonsensical book as the source of all knowledge, because there are some disparities in evolution? NO!
This is the most desperate plea in support of nonsense I have ever seen. Man!Did you say some disparities! That is an understatement.
And no, I don't expect you to take the Bible as the truth because you've clearly hardended your heart to anything except the words of your gurus of Evolutionary theory.That's complete BS. Your Bronze Age silly book, written by goat herders, is completely absurd, even if there was no debate about evolution.
Even with an open mind, the concept of an Adam & Eve is a primitive, nonsensical story told to a fearful ignorant population. Yet, here you are trying to convince others that this is the truth of how we arrived on this planet. You have an extremely limited imagination, and you have sacrificed your life to a delusion.
You are truly desperate, trying to use a rational argument to prove that a childish fairytale is true.I have to take issue with the idea that their book was written by goat herders. The original stuff was written by a group of highly educated people and contains some of the most forward thinking of its day.
I doubt the writers ever imagined that the metaphors they used in trying to rationalise the unknown (in a similar set of theories to the way science works today except with no information as evidence) that a whole bunch of future numpties would start claiming it to be literally true, even children know a good story full of metaphors when they hear it - you would think today's adults would know better with all the information and evidence all around them. You have to wonder at the levels of mis-education these people have suffered.You would have to reared in the Bible Belt to understand, CM! Almost every creationist posting here has been indoctrinated into these beliefs at an early age. Over and over they have been told if they don't believe the Bible they will burn in hell. They cannot help telling these untruths, they think they are fighting a battle for Jesus! Seriously!
And you have your own delusions. I hope your sacrifice is worth it in the end.
To what nonsense are you referring? My idea of nonsense is the fact that you can actually believe that this whole universe and all that it contains can just suddenly all come together and form by blind chance. Even primitive goat herders wouldn't believe such foolishness as this.
Oh, I'm sorry! I don't want to misrepresent you again. I should have said that blind chance was helped out by having billions of years to get it right. That makes it a lot easier.
Funny how one book of myths and superstitions can make people believe things like that, coupled with a lack of knowledge and understanding, people make assertions like this:
Absolutely astounding and breathtaking ignorance!
In other words, you're not interested in hard evidence or proof of any kind, from your own words:
"as I believe, the transitions aren't there"
So, we can conclude the discussion is not really over, it never really started and probably never will.
If you honestly believe this is how science works then it is no wonder you are confused and say the things you do.
However for what it's worth I agree with the statement that science and the truth of our existence scares you.
I think the reason it scares you is that in your heart you fear we may be right and that you and many many others have lived with a false belief.
I won't call it a lie because the Biblical story of creation is just that, a story, thousands of years old told as a simple explanation to a simple people. Same as saying "God did It !" Was a good way of stopping people asking questions.
The whole point of scientific work starts from "I Do Not Know" and starts from there no preconceived notions... or there shouldn't be.
I do not have the Spirit of fear in me,there is nothing you can do or say that can scare me or put fear in me.Everytime you evos come out with another missing link I know that its a matter of time before the hoax is seen for what it is!!! And if my God let me down as much as yours I would be bitter and angry like you and show it in a dried up humor like yours
Point out the name I called you, Roy. Why do you have a problem telling the truth? Does your religion teach you that telling the truth is bad?
i myself would not suck one into religion while yet all of our highly profound sceintist are not able to solidify their belief in evolution first it was a ape then a fish a germ a asteroid a star whats next when the simplicity of it all is God created man
Are you sure you weren't first? Your speech seems rather rudimentary!
Poor oppressed Darwin; God's telling lies about him. We should dig up his grave and make a statue outta the dust of his bones and fall down and worship such a wise man.
and how would that help?...after all nature does not demand to be worshiped nor do dead ones...
I was being sarcastic.
You're right, nature doesn't demand to be worshipped, and neither do dead people. But many people DO worship those. Go figure.
From Catholicism (which many sects worship a dead woman) to athiesm (which many sects worship the earth) to "new-agers" who worship themselves, to Islam (which worships a poor imitation of God) to a myriad of religions and ideas that worship everything but the true God.Atheists don't worship anything.
There are some nutty Gaia folks, but they are not atheists. They are just another kind of theist, just like you.I think they do.
I think they worship that thirst for knowledge, a knowledge unattainable by anyone until death hits.Since when was a search for knowledge Worship ?
Surely a search for knowledge is merely a search for enlightenment and truth....
You are right that it is something we do, or should do, until death. Any day I do not think or challenge myself is a day wasted. Any day I fail to learn something new is an opportunity lost.
If as you suspect we will continue this search beyond death then I will embrace that challenge if and when it comes.
But please forgive us who will fill our days in achieving all we can from those who wish to teach.So, essentially you are saying that we prefer to learn things and you don't. Doesn't that say more about you and not us?
No. What I'm saying is that you seek knowledge, the knowledge that Christians already have, and you seek it through the wrong means.
1 Corinthians 1: 21, 22:
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knows not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom."
You are like the Greeks who seek wisdom through tangible facts, while the Truth is right under your noses and you dare not look at it for fear you'll be labeled one of those "foolish" ones.Really? Your god told us about germs, computers, algebra, trigonometry and so on and so on?
Christianity provided some history and some myths. No knowledge.Actually, most, if not all, of those concepts ARE in the Bible.
Just not easily interpreted by most people, because they want it all laid out in definite form like a math teacher would do. The easy way out, and all the while claiming to want real knowledge....but that is how it should be...it should not be hidden and subject to interpretation...may be god can learn from math teacher that it is teacher's job to make sure student learn and dont misinterpretate...god wants humans to survive , work for their food and in the end makes things difficult by hiding things which he actually wants them to learn??????...well god seems to be anything but loving kind...i vote for maths teacher...atleast she helped me learn things which brings me bread,butter...
Sure they are, Brenda, sure they are.
Could you point me at the part that tells us how to build an anti-gravity machine? Or cure cancer?You obviously didn't read the chapter of the bible that goes,
'And lo, Bill Gates said un to the unsuspecting programmer, I will borrow thou graphical interface and bring it back in the morning.'
Isn’t that like saying the only book you ever need is a dictionary because everything ever written is in there all you have to do is sort it out !
Why is it so hard for anybody to understand that the Planet and all life upon it Evolved millions of years before the equation, “I think therefore I am,” came to the mind of man ?
Torah, Bible, Quran, Jew, Christian Muslim, they are all slight variations of the same tiny theme, for their time they gave the answers to the questions of the day....
Today for some people those answers seem to be enough for them, therefore they should be happy and content with that, but they don’t seem to be.... I ask Why ?
Others, like me are far from content with some Holy preacher telling us we must blindly accept everything they say as God given Fact and when we refuse this makes them more unhappy, again I ask Why ? Why does it bother them so much ?
Are they unhappy at our disobedience of their dubious authority or the fact that we seek enlightenment through our own efforts ? Or could it be that as is already the case that their authority is built upon Myths and Lies and that some of us see them for what they are and that the only truth they hide is truth itself.
The Roman Catholic Christian Church did this for centuries and murdered any and all who dared to challenge them. We are seen frightening similarities in Fundamentalist Muslins today and a growing Evangelistic movement in the US who would promote the same murderous zeal if we allowed it. In the past five thousand years man has developed and advanced and matured in knowledge and wisdom why therefore have we managed to leave so many of you behind ?
All I have ever sought is a simple answer to a simple question WHY do these people fear the truth so much that they will cheat, lie and murder to suppress it in the name of a fictitious Supreme being ?The bible contains those things, just as any book if analysed enough could contain anything.
That's very funny, Brenda. LOL! But, I do understand how believers equate 'knowledge' to the myths and superstitions they embrace.
So sorry that you have been labeled "foolish" for your beliefs, Brenda. But, when you reject tangible facts for myths and superstitions, the proof is in the putting.What truth? The bible offers no knowledge, at best it can be said to be a collection of rather obvious moral values.
I think you have an atrocious comprehension deficit. How did you score on your entrance exams when you were studying Philosophy?
I actually score incredibly well, and I also know how people will use grammar in an attempt to exaggerate their intelligence. It is of course one of the number one pointers of personality deficits of people who enjoy belittling the intelligence of others but who cannot hold reasoned argument.
The Bible is all about truth, and knowledge. Sorry you have not spent any time discovering it for yourself. It was written by the hand of man from the inspiration of God, the creator of the universe.
Learned men and women have tried to disprove the truth that is in the Word of God, with no success. Yes, they can claim to have done so, but as time goes by, the Bible proves itself to be truth.
As far as knowledge is concerned, you can find financial advice, relationship advice, building advice, advice about not repeating history, the whole gamut of the human experience is displayed in the Bible. All you have to do is read it.
You might be interested in taking a look at the prophesies to see where we are in relationship to those. Remember, the Bible was written in ancient times, but the prophesies are coming true as we speak. How's that for truth?I think you need to get out more often. If you did, you would know that the bible has been easily debunked.
It only takes a little common sense to debunk the outrageously silly nonsense in the bible. The only reason you can't accept this is that you can't admit that your religion is a farce.
So re-interpretion will be done again and again and.....I think you meant 'Re Invent' not re-interpret.
I can't believe this thread is still going round in ever decreasing circles, I gave up trying to debate this and half a dozen other like subjects as one of my New Years resolutions.
It's a waste of time and it is an argument that no amount of logic, reason or common sense is going to overcome.
If you take away the Dummy, the child just screams all the louder !
Do what I do, close the door on them let them rant and rave till they run out of listeners or die, whichever comes soonest and go down the pub for a pint.Bless your heart, the Bible has never been disproved, just disbelieved but rebellious souls.
God bless you
VOICE CI W, What truth? Jesus Christ is Truth. The Bible contains so much knowledge. Have you studied the Bible? Not just read it, but sat down and studied it. If you don't believe in Christ you won't get any knowledge from it. The Apostle Paul said in the Bible, If our Gospel (Bible) is hid, it is hid from those who are lost. The Bible have a wealth of knowledge in it, you just have to believe.
When the Bible talks about knowledge, it is reference to knowing the spirit. When it talks about wisdom, it is referring to self righteousness. Book learning is not part of the mix. Here is my comparison of how the Bible is trying to tell us we are part of the collective consciousness.
1 Cor 2: 11-16 "For what man knows the things of man except for the spirit of man within him? We have received the spirit which is of God...comparing spiritual things to spiritual things. But we have the mind of Christ."
So, Christ is one with the Father. We have the mind of Christ. We are made not only in the image of God (physical) but in the likeness (personality, spirit, etc.) We can therefore strive to remember what it is like to be as God.
1 Cor 4:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any seem wise, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
This is the beginning of consciousness appearing in the mind as intellect. An 'intellectual' might 'forget' spirit so we must lose the illusion of substance at which point we gain non-attachment and therefore a purified non-argumentative mind. On attaining purity there is the flow of spritual consciousness. The wisdom obtained in this higher state is different than that attained by inference.
However...habitual patterns of thought stand in the way of this austerity. Some of us call it nature, while others call it god.
Atheists worship the matter. But it is not worship, but it is belief system which qualify for religion. Actually is registered as the religion.
Athist don't worhsip anything. A religio-centric world requires it be recognised in that category for atheists to have normal human rights--so we did.
Everybody worships something, money, status, education, just because they don't realize they are "worshiping" it doesn't mean they aren't. Whatever you esteem above all else is your God. Some who worship the one true God really worship their time on their boat more. If more true believers truely believed, there'd be less atheists because others would see God living and working in their lives, instead they hear that God is present but only see someone just like them.
That's funny. Atheists worship the earth? I am an atheist and everybody in my family are atheists. And, mostly, the people I associate with are atheists. As yet, I don't know of anyone worshipping the earth. We actually do not worship anything or anyone.
We try to live as ethically as we can because we are mostly humanists. This does not mean we worship human beings. This means we think that there is no god to hep us, so if we want to sort things out on this planet then we better be kind to other humans and do the best we can collectlvely to make this a good place to live...The Earth is not dead anyway, so whats wrong with worshipping it? It sustains all our lives, with the help of the sun and the climate.
now you'd kick up a stink if we swapped Darwin for Jesus
This actually made me laugh. I must agree that Darwin is more deserving of my worship than 'god'. But for now I think I'll leave him in his grave.
The Demon Writer: Oh, you like to worship dead, I see.
At their heart, religions are about control. In order to control, one must limit critical thinking. The entire purpose of the ID/Creationist movement is not to elevate ID to the level of a science, but to diminish science to the status of "just another belief system".
If the Discovery Institute and their Creationists cohorts can succeed in relegating science to the level of belief, there is no longer a reason that ID/Creationism cannot be taught on equal footing in classrooms.
It's pretty sick and twisted logic.Good point. Religion in general is a form of behavior and social control. Christians have the "Ten Commandments". Muslims have their edicts of what is halal and what is haram. Jews have kosher and not kosher. Even Buddhists have "don't kill life" and such edicts.
Most of the problem is about the fact that science is not something they can control. Science does NOT require the almighty being(s) to be present to explain everything, or in fact, anything. It doesn't help that Atheists have borrowed Darwin's banner and use it somehow to "prove" that God does not exist. (Darwin himself never said such a thing) As a result, Creationists became directly opposed to Evolutionists.
I recommend Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe in Weird Things", where he discussed in detail the reasonings of Creationists (or as he called them, Evolution-Deniers), their similarity to Holocaust Deniers, and a short history of both and how to spot problems in their arguments.i wouldnt mind hearing some of the 'problems in their arguments'. It sounds fascinating.
Aka Winston, it is communists who promote Darwinism. The same time Marx, Hitler all saluted to Darwin. They want control, power and money.
i dont think religion is about control perhaps in the past when we look at what catholicism did but today.. i don't see my church running for govenor or trying to get mass followings to declare a private state. I don't even see my church trying to control me.
I do not believe the bible was created for control purposes i believe the people of the bible had a genuine relationship with God and the more i read the bible and i see its depths of knowledge i am persuaded that it is not a work of man but of God.
You people who worry about control should really be looking at the institutions of control that are touchable in the world, govs, police, even up to the United nations. There are many more tangible oppressions in the world than God. Ye are all too superstitious.
Here's another lie that turned up on the comments of my hub, Darwin, The Man who killed god. The lie was: "Jim Jones turned people to become atheist!" LOL
Because the facts are not on their side.
They have to distort the truth in order to have an argument. Not that it holds any weight with those of us who know better, but they may confuse or mislead people who are not educated on the subject.
The only reason I debate creationists or Intelligent Design theorists is to help promote understanding, and maybe set one or two people straight in the process.
Creationism and ID are comprised - almost entirely - of assumptions (i.e. the assumption that the human eye is too complex to have come about by natural selection) and arguments from ignorance (we can't explain it, therefore, God dunnit). ID and creationism don't actually qualify as theories (they're hypothesis').Evolution does not exist. No one was there to see it take place and no one today has found even one shred of evidence in all of archeology or biology or science to prove it happened.
People believe in evolution because they want to. They feel the need to believe in something other than there being a creator or God.
Since all the so called evidence has been disproved, many evolutionist are now believing we come from some ancient alien race who seeded the Earth and propagated humans.
By the way alien is a word in the Bible for a stranger. Now it means someone or some entity from a far flung planetary system.
It always comes down to choice. Your are either for God or anti-God, for Christ or anti-Christ, or you believe in some other form of cult worship.
Definition of cult:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Try looking at nature and see all the trees and flowers, see how different they are, then look at animals, what a great variety there are, and then the human. Do you really in your mind believe they all evolved from a rock or some primordial soup?
Maybe you need to read some anatomy and physiology books to read about the Krebs cycle or how many different things have to happen for you to see one object how many things happen within your body when you get a cut on your finger.
There is no way I evolved from some kind of slush, everything in your body was created to interact for your good. It even has built in obsolescence, our bodies are like a clock ticking down to stillness because it cannot be rewound.
The Great Creator of the Bible who is Jesus can rewind your clock and give you a new body that will last eternally. It takes a conviction that you are a sinner and a confession you believe Jesus lived the perfect sinless, blameless life, that He died for your sins and you believe in Him.
How simple is that to believe.A surprisingly well written post from someone who seems to have completely failed to do any research to back up their claims on that there is no evidence to back it up. Archeology, biology and science all back up evolution, but nothing backs up religion, at all.
You give me 2 proofs in Archeology, biology and science that back up evolution. I can't wait for your post.
Maybe life will evolve before you can document the 2 proofs in each field.You give me 2 proofs in Archeology, biology and science that back up evolution. I can't wait for your post.
Maybe life will evolve before you can document the 2 proofs in each field.Religion is not of God. The variety opinion is not of God. This is why atheism is also religion. There is no proof of anything which is pro evolution. The evolution is based on pseudoscience. Nobody can go back to study past. All is belief fiction, opinion.
But you do believe the ancient goat herders, right? LOL!
Evolution took place everywhere but in Texas. There seems to be plenty of proof of that!LOL!
Show me the evolution proof from your state.
It is funny how someone can attack Texas because they want to attack someone's belief.
Where is your proof?
LOLTexas happens to be a great place to live. I love it here, mostly because it allows me to be free enough to think my own thoughts and to believe what I wish. I think that is supposed to be what this country is all about.
Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created.
It takes a great deal more faith to believe that we evolved from some amoeba, or mass, than it does to believe that God created all living things after their kind. Where did the amoeba come from in the first place, if not from God? After all, that is a living thing.
Please, don't take this out of context, but I do believe in some form of evolution. I believe that nature has a way of adapting to its environment, but I do not believe that there is any way that one species can become an entirely new one.
I also believe that there must have been a pretty large "bang" when God placed the stars and sun and moon in the sky, and when He started the earth spinning on its axis. I also believe that Adam must have gasped when he took his first breath.
I believe we can see and hear evidence of His hand on everything He created every time we look into the faces of those we love, and see the wonder of nature. How could that have taken place without intelligent design. The simple beauty of a flowers and trees and oceans could not have taken place by chance.
Taking a look at the complexity of a single cell, one cannot honestly believe that it did not take intelligence to design this. How could there not have been intelligence involved when each cell is made up of so many parts. This could not have happened by chance.
I find it sad to think that one mans theory has led to so many abandoning the truth for something that has no real proof to back it up.
My prayer is that God will reveal Himself to those who have the courage to seek the truth.“Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created”
This a direct and deliberate LIEWhat part do you consider a lie? The fact that fossil evidence denies evolution or that brave scientists disprove the "theory" of evolution? Or, could it be that atheism is a religion unto itself.
I must assume that you have "facts" to back up your claims, otherwise you would not be asking for others to present theirs, but I don't find them here.
I also must assume that you are seeking some real answers, and I pray that God presents them to you.
God bless you
I don't consider them a lie - they are a lie, period.
I have taken the (pointless) time to look through the thread to find anywhere you provide one item of proof or even one item that might support your statement. You talk (a lot) about what people think and believe - but no proof or disputed evidence. I guess your god told you to lie for him then ?
As for the topic of this thread - why do creationists lie to attack evolution, it is because they are making the last attempt to defend their ridiculous ideas with the most ridiculous idea yet. This is only possible because of the modern media and the appalling ignorance that results from poor educational standards.I'm still waiting for our testing of the bible, so I can make up my mind about believing. I was just left hanging.
If you look over the various threads that discuss the childish notion of creationism you will find that there is only noise - but never any evidence, unless you consider that Woman of Courage's giant skeletons are fact
It is not possible that all the people who make the noise are stupid, so I guess we have to conclude that they are liars.VOICE CIW, how do you go about testing of the Bible. Can man comprehend the Infinite Mind of God. Belief in the Bible comes through faith in God. If you don't have faith in God, there is no way you will believe the Bible, the Bible is God's Word, you cannot begin to understand or believe the Bible apart from God. Man cannot test the Bible, the Bible test man.
Does the Koran have that status as well...or the Torah...or Aesop Fables...?
Dude, the argument you are posing is old, worn out, mindless drivel. It shows the ultimate in blind following. You mean to tell me you are advocating that we have no way of testing the bible, unless we already believe that the document is TRUE?
You, clearly, have surrendered your mind.
Do you consider that, maybe...just maybe, you should have more control of your life than this. This mindset is frightening.Truth does not change, how can it? What is true may age, but it will never become untrue.
You have no way of understanding the truth, because you do not believe. It is often just as hard for an intellectual to believe in God as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
If you will take a look at the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that many of them have been fulfilled in the past century alone. One in particular occurred in 1948 when Israel became a nation in one day. Prophesied in Isaiah 66: 7-8 The link below will show how that transpired.
http://therefinersfire.org/israel_born_in_one_day.htm
You don't have to believe, but you and others ask for proof all the time. Here it is.
God bless you
VOICE CIW, Frightening to you getitrite, and well it should be, you are the one following blindly the god of this world system. You people kill me, you actually think you are in control of your life, I got news for you, your mind is in control of someone else other than you. And guess what? You are too blind to see it. God is in control of my life, and I am so happy and blessed. I am not going to go back and forth with you, you do not belive what I am saying, so I will just say, I am going to pray for you.
You believe in mythical characters--devils and demons, and gods. And you believe these mythical creatures are, at this very moment, controlling you and me?
VOICE, you should not go back and forth with me, not because I don't believe, but because your argument is pure childish nonsense.
Apparently, you have no evidence to back up your claims to anything being a lie. You seem to simply be relying upon opinion, yours. Just because you do not choose to believe something does not make it a lie.
You talk a lot also, and from what I can see, it is all just a lot of hot angry air. That in my opinion is childish.
In the final analysis, we will all find out, soon enough, just who is lying and who is telling the truth.
As I have said before, those who choose to believe the biggest lie of them all, ( that there is no God) are not likely to be convinced of His existence.
God bless youAnd this is coming on May 11, this year, right?
idamac, I am in full agreement with your response. God bless you!
so where is the evidence from Texas and who are the few 'brave' scientists who have proved anything to do with your weird belief is factual. Accusing others of hot air when that is all you have given - is normal tactics for the liars for jesus.
Stop puffing and blowing and put up some evidence - or stop spreading lies and deceit.God bless you , China Man. My hope for you is that you will be able to see the truth when it is presented to you.
Why don't you simply back up your statement about "brave scientists", like several of us have asked you to do? If you can't then you are merely telling lies for Jesus. LOL!
china man, Evidence? You wouldn't believe the evidence if it were staring you right in the face. It's not kind of you to accuse me of a liar when you disagree with something I believe. I will not accept any of your insults. Love and Blessings to you
Have a nice day!Do you guys think making statements without anything to back them up helps your argument? It only adds to the obvious desperation you project here on these forums. Sad.
Speaking of evidence, where is yours. You have not presented any as of yet. I know the scientists cannot provide definitive proof of evolution creating life.
God bless youThat is true because evolution does not "create" life. That would demonstrate no understanding of evolution on your part.
Well yes, it would take faith to believe in such nonsense considering life did not come from a Big Bang. Again, this demonstrates no understanding of those concepts.
Of course, by not understanding any of those concepts, one immediately jumps to the conclusion of a magical man waving his magical hand based on the religious indoctrination received as a child.
And, it sure is very, very odd that you claimed your husband is a microbiologist, yet there is no understanding of the very simplest of those concepts on your part.
Really? Kinda like making the claim your husband is a microbiologist with proof that evolution is false.
Well in the first place it was not you I accused of lying - it was the post to which I replied, secondly I know from your previous posts that you are a simple soul trapped in the narrow confines of your creationist indoctrination - not a liar.
The liars for jesus is directed at those who say that they have evidence and then cannot produce it - they must know they don't have it - and so they are liars.
VOICE CIW, idamac whoever do not believe that God exists, is void of understanding. The fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge. idamac, I have read so many of your comments, you are truly a child of God. You keep on contending for the faith, I am going to keep you in my prayers. You have another brother in Christ, me. God Bless You! I love you in the Lord
Here you go dude! A special video you will agree with. And Roy should love it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&NR=1Thank you Voice, I appreciate the confidence. Yes, I do love the Lord. He has done so very much for me. I have witnessed his hand on my life in many instances. I am not worthy to be called His, but as you know, we don't stand on our own worthiness, but on His.
My mission is to enlighten others about His awesome love. You are right, the fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge, thank you for the reminder.
Thank you also for being my brother, where would we be if not for family.
God bless you so very much.
well you're wrong in both those claims - misinformed or lying?
It would be nice if people would stop using the term lying, for statements they do not agree with. Just because you do not agree does not mean that the statement if a lie. That is just an easy way for some to demonstrate ignorance.
Now, before you take issue with the word "ignorance", you might want to take a look at the dictionary definition. Ignorance simply means uneducated, and that can simply be on a particular subject matter.
Misinformation abounds with many people, but that does not mean that a discussion of the topics cannot shed some light for all parties involved. I know that I learn when I get involved with a discussion of a topic that I am uneducated about.
God bless you
"Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created."
Great! How about sharing this exciting new information with us! Especially the names of the "brave scientists"and their proof of intelligent design.Sorry Randy, but it is not new information. Evidence of creation is all around us and has been since the beginning of time.
As for brave scientists, there are quite a few of them to choose from, do your own research. My husband for one, as a Molecular Biologist, can provide great amounts of proof that there is no way we could have evolved from some mass or form that had no beginning of its own.
My question is, where did this mass or amoeba come from in the first place? If the evolution "theory" is correct, who created the amoeba? Where did it come from so that it could have been responsible for creating everything that exists today in the natural form? You see, creation does exist even in the minds of evolutionists.
If there are no answers to these questions, then why should we believe that evolution is responsible for life as we know it today?
Where is the missing link? I know, they have been searching for it for decades. Some claim to have found it, but those claims are always debunked.
Can you provide proof that your "theory" is correct? Like I said before, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.
God bless youSo you refuse to back up your statement but ask for proof from me? LOL!
So, you have no proof, but you prefer to stand firm on your belief that there is no God.
Reasonable people provide proof of what they believe rather than blindly following someone Else's thoughts. This is true with any sort of religion, whether it is Christianity, Islam, or Atheism. If you don't know the reason for your faith, you will fall for anything.
I believe that there are many Christians as well as others who follow the dictates of any religion, who do not fully understand the reasons for their beliefs. This is sad because not knowing why you believe what you believe sets one up for, as stated above, falling for anything.
I believe that this is one of the reasons that Christianity takes a bad rap sometimes. Quite frankly, I believe that not everyone that presents themselves as Christians is really a Christian. You have to sort through the superficial and get down to the nitty gritty.
Individual Christians should not be judged by the actions of others, but by their own. Isn't this true of every other person on this earth? We are all individuals and must be judged by our own actions.
I believe what I believe because I have proof that God really does exist. He has revealed Himself to me in many ways. I can tell you that He has been there when I needed Him the most. At times of great distress in my life, when I could not even utter prayers with my petitions to Him. He was there and sent people and things that I needed, and even provided the Bible verses that pertained to my circumstances.
I wish this kind of intimacy with God for everyone, but that is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
It will not matter what evidence I put before you, you will believe whatever you want to believe. I cannot prove that God exists, and I should not have to do that. He is big enough to prove Himself to anyone, at any time He wants to do that. He is a gentleman though, and will not interject His presence on anyone that does not want it.
Take a look at these scientists.
Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome project, understood that there is no number system to support the theory of random chance. You can find this authors writings on this topic at Amazon. The Language Of God a scientist presents evidence of belief
Linus Pauling understood that cellular development was too precise to be randomly developed.
Albert Einstein "It was created and set in motion. It evolves but only to change as the environment changes."
Neil Armstrong, the noted astronaut. "Things are too precise to have been randomly developed.
Charles Darwin stated on his death bed that he had made a grievous error. "I hope God will forgive me."
Your turn.
God bless youYou have put no evidence in front of me to back your claims. Your last statement about Darwin is laughable. He said no such thing. This has been debunked by his family. Not even a good try.
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? LOL!
Satan likes you!Like I said, we all have to choose for ourselves what we believe.
God bless youTypical christian, talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. LOL! Make claims, can't back them up.
Lucifer bless you!Randy
I'm still waiting for Idamac to test the bible the way she tested evolution, so I can make up my mind.
For some reason she doesn't seem to be the least interested in going at it in the same manner that she went after evolution.
Yet she wants me to respect the veracity of her beliefs.
This is what I don't understand about these believers, they can attack evolution, and leave no stone unturned, but when you ask them to do the same for their beliefs, they immediately retreat.
She just lost me as a convert, because it appears that there is an issue of integrity. The silence is an admission of dishonesty.She is typical of the thumper mindset,getitrite. Odds are she was raised in a fundamentalist church and was indoctrinated at an early age. Brainwashing at an early age is hard to escape from.
She has nothing but talk and a novel full of myths to try and defend her argument. Jim Jones would have been glad to have her help hand out Kool-Aid to the kids. LOL!You guys crack me up. You offer no evidence other than your beliefs that evolution resulted in life on this earth, yet you persistently try to cause others to doubt their time honored belief in the one true and living God.
As you may well know, the first man walked with God, and people have worshiped Him ever since. It has only been in the last century that the theory of evolution raised its ugly head. Time will tell.
You do not have to believe that He exists, but I know he does.
In the final analysis, I would rather be wrong and just go to sleep one day and that be the end of it, than to not believe and spend and eternity in hell.
We will someday see who is right.
God bless youI hope we don't see each other in heaven. That would be hell for me.
Baal loves you!Not so fast, I'm no longer advocating that evolution is true. I'm now in your court, so let us now scrutinize the bible the same way you thoroughly tested evolution. Don't tell me you got me this far just to abandon me.
OK, let's get started: Let us test the veracity of this--did the first man walk with God? When you say people, do you mean just Christians or everybody, or is this just religious talk to reenforce belief? Also will time really tell?
Please respond with evidence---keeping in mind that the standards for the evidence are to be as rigid as we set for evolution, lest we be dishonest-and not good Christians.
Let's see...we are gonna need some proof Idamac, Thanks
Ah Pascal's Wager would only send me to hell anyway, because it says in the bible that God already knows my heart, so He would know that I was full of BS. We're gonna have to debunk this one.
I don't know how you are gonna show evidence for this Idamac.
I cannot say it often enough. Where is the definitive evidence that life came from nothing but a big bang. Takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe that God created the earth and everything in it.
God bless youWhat evidence have you offered to back up your claim, Idamac? There is plenty of evidence to prove evolution is the only possible answer for the different species.
But you are so ignorant of science you cannot understand it. You prefer to believe in an ancient book of fictitious stories with a petty god which cannot make up his mind whether he wants to create the world or murder his own creations, including the vast majority of animals. I suppose those animals were wicked too, along with all of the babies and children.
What evil did these babies do, Idamac? And the pregnant women who drowned had innocent children in their bodies. Abortion is against your beliefs, but it's beautiful when a loving god does it, isn't that right Idamac.
But you want answer these questions because you are frightened woman. And because you have no answers, just superstitious nonsense. Too bad you weren't around during the Salem Witch Trials. Cotton Mather would have loved you. But you probably know nothing about this Man of God. He's not in your novel.
I'm asking you not to bless me with your evil god anymore. It is a personal insult to me.So if someone gives you definitive evidence, you would believe in evolution? What kind of evidence in particular would it take? And don't just ignore this question like you've done to those you don't want to answer.
idamac, I love your replies
It's not fair for anyone to judge christians by the actions of others.Actually it is a SIN to judge... period... if you claim to be christian...But I will agree is is unfair to judge someone based on the actions of others...no matter what thier beliefs are...
As long as we understand that passing judgment on others is what is meant. However, we must use our own judgment, or rather discernment, when we make decisions about people and things.
Passing judgment means to, in effect, dole out punishment, and that can be considering all Christians to be wrong.
Sin is missing the mark. I hope none of us do that.
God bless you
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established Theory of Evolution, but you find nothing wrong with believing in nonsense recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a few generations old.
To say that you use double standards is a gross understatement.It seems like an honest question which you avoided. The answer is, you cannot answer it.
I cannot answer it either. We simply do not yet understand how the very first spark of life as we know it came to be. The earliest life forms we have found are 3.5 billion years old microbes, but we do not have a definitive answer to that question - yet.
Does that make the evidence for evolution some how worthless?Yes. If you cannot provide photos and fossil evidence of every single step and stage of evolution, that totally proves the whole theory is garbage and PROVES that it was really a magical being that made everything.
Thank you for not answering my question.
I see you have chosen not to address my comments on the 50 million year long Cambrian "explosion" and instead repeat the lie. Please address what I said and the link I added rather than repeat parrot fashion the same thing.
Oh well. That is Christianity for you. What I have seen falls apart based on the way Christians behave.
Yet that is what you claim is it not? Just needed a Majikal Super Bein wot dunnit. Sorry, of the hundreds of posts I guess I missed that one. Could you enlighten me? Also, your obvious sarcasm aside. If something cannot come from nothing in this universe, then obviously it had to come from somewhere. Unless you can answer that and prove that something can come from nothing, evolution will always remain an unprovable theory.
If I believe that the universe itself with all of its design comes from a living designer, how is that any more far fetched than you saying that everthing came ultimately from nothing or from some eternal matter or energy with no life and no will.
Also, where did the matter come from in the first place? These are questions that no man can answer. And yet Evolutionary theorists say Evolution has been proved.You say no man can answer, yet you answer with Goddunnit!
This is madness.God has answered for Himself, with the resurrected Christ.
It's funny how it appears that you are the one answering for God, because He is a figment of your imagination.
And so is your imaginary resurrected Christ. I have yet to hear these two imaginary creatures say ANYTHING. If I ever do, I'm gonna seek help.
God and Jesus-two beings purported to be all-powerful, but seem to be so weak as if they didn't even exist.
But you can keep imagining that they created the universe, and talks to you, and will send me to hell. However, I can't bring myself to fear them, becasue they are so ultra-powerless.I haven't seen your magical energy or matter bring forth its life out of nothing either. It would seem powerless to do so.
If I could witness that just once then maybe I'd fall down and worship at the throne of Charles Darwin. Until then I think I'll laugh at the mythical story of Evolution bringing forth a system so complex and vast that we have been studying it for centuries and still haven't reached the depths of its secrets.If you were here on the forums really looking to find the facts and to ultimately learn the truth, your position would be respected. But anyone can see that this is not your aim. Your aim is to try to destroy an established scientific model, and replace it with the ignorance of the dark ages.
If you had no agenda, but merely wanted to research the truth about evolution, then you would not "debunk" evolution in one statement, then champion your ignorant beliefs in the next statement.
Your argument against evolution is absurd, since you propose replacing it with this abject ignorance from Bronze Age goat herders, making up their own primitive brand of reality.So this forum was started to merely give forth the wonderful "truth" about evolution. Thank you for letting me know that. I thought it was started to make fun of religious belief in general and Christianity specifically. Since that is not the case and you had only the purest of motives to expand the minds of unbelievers, I guess there is nothing for me to talk about.
By the way, in case you did have pure motives in this forum, you don't lead people out of darkness into your light by insults. And just because a belief system is old, doesn't make it automatically wrong or a myth. It too must be examined for its merits. So I think it is faulty reasoning to call it a "Bronze Age Myth."
No wonder your religion causes so many wars............
Man causes wars. I could go on all day as to the thousands of good things Christianity has done, or to be more accurate, those who follow the Christian belief system.
Very True...Lots of good things have been done by "christians" but you must admit lots of bad things have been done as well...the same can be said of any faith...
No one doubts your ability to "go on all day" but your ability to actually say anything worth listening to is doubtful.
But carry on if you wish. You are a pastor so you surely like to hear yourself talk.Perish the thought! I'm too honest to be a pastor!
Yes, I had rather listen to myself talk than imagine I'm hearing supernatural deities, like some do.
What denomination are you, Baptist?I am a non denominational believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, I have never audibly heard God talk to me. Since the Bible is the complete revelation of God to man, He doesn't need to do this in the age in which we live. I am, however looking for Christ's return when I will see Him face to face. Then we won't need this debate any longer. We will all know He is real.
By the way, they say you aren't crazy if you talk to yourself. But just don't answer yourself. Then you might want to see someone about your condition.
You are free to do so, but others have tried and failed miserably. In fact, through their efforts, it was shown that Christianity has done far more harm to mankind than any good.
Another thing, you can call my argument absurd if you want, but you still cannot tell me where life comes from. It is absurd to throw out an intelligent designer when you clearly have nothing to put in His place. Life is a mystery and the odds of it happening by chance are so small that it is nothing you want to bet you life on.
The fact that believers do not go to any lengths to research or understand those concepts does not mean those concepts are not understood by others. And, the fact that believers immediately introduce "intelligent design" into their explanations only serves to confirm they have no understanding of those concepts.
It has been determined that:
It is Bronze Age Myths, mixed with a few facts.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
So what, then, is the point I'm missing?
How did I call this one so egregiously wrong?No one said you were wrong. I just said I didnt see that.
It appears to be a genuine observation and opinion about evolution. One that not only he has voiced but many others on this thread have too. That being, that evolution is a theory and cannot be proved. No one can debunk evolution with one statement unless one allows that to occur.
What you perceive or I perceive or anyone else as this or that does not alter evolution or creation. However which way we wish to view it.Okey Dokey! But I don't see how anyone would not be aware of his blatant agenda to totally negate a scientific model, and replace it with ignorant Bronze Age nonsense.
I would like to debate evolution with someone who has no agenda. And debate the issue on the grounds that evolution just doesn't make enough sense to be accepted as a scientific theory.
Ah - the crux of the matter - you do not know or understand evolutionary theory. OK - Odd that you claim to have found holes in the theory.
Still - back to the original question I suppose. Why the need to be so dishonest? Odd also that you say something did indeed come from nothing. Just that a Invisible Super Being dunnit. If you are too lazy to go back through my direct responses to you - I cannot be bothered to do the work for you.
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Regarding the question of whether this makes the evidence for evolutionary theory invalid, I would say no if your evidence truly is valid and your conclusions for that evidence are sound.
In looking at the fossil record, I see it breaking down around the era of the Cambrian Explosion. It is during this period that virtually every phyla known to man seems to have sprung. They co-exist in this layer with no apparent evolutionary sequence.
Also, I would suggest that the idea of life springing from non-life goes against every law of nature that we currently espouse.
"We are ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth." I think those who wish to rely solely upon scientific evidence should understand that scientists do not have all the answers.
If a theory cannot be proven time and time again, it is not evidence at all. If there are any variances to the theory, the theory is null and void. There is no scientific evidence that supports the "theory" of evolution. As a matter of fact, the creator of the "theory" has stated his Mea Culpa. What more do you need?
God bless youOK. You are very convincing. Now since you have thoroughly and convincingly debunked evolution, what are the implications?
Are we to, now, take the reasonable route, and say we just don't know? Or do we now look to the only other source of information on this subject--the bible-- for the answer?
God bless you.Thank you. Take the reasonable route, but don't give up the quest.
All any of us have to go on is what we have been taught. Sometimes that teaching has been from erroneous sources. That is the reason we should all study for ourselves and not just take the word of others about what we should believe.
The Bible is a wonderful source of information pertaining to anything to do with human beings. We just need to study it closely and use reference materials as well.
I know that for myself, I was taught replacement theology from the time I was a child, but when I started studying for myself, I found that the Jews remain the chosen people of God. This does not mean that Gentiles cannot be grafted in as sons and daughters of God as well.
"Study to show yourself approved, a workman that needs not to be ashamed."
God bless youSo if the bible is the answer, it means that you and I will have put it through the same rigid, and even unreasonable, stringent tests as we did evolution, right?
So let the tests begin.
As this is your statement below:
All any of us have to go on is what we have been taught. Sometimes that teaching has been from erroneous sources. That is the reason we should all study for ourselves and not just take the word of others about what we should believe.
That is not the only "other" source. There are many, all of which can only be confirmed by within you.
Hey, Baileybear, there you are again. I am thrilled that you are following my comments.
Evidence of creation is all around you. You might want to take a look at the book I suggested before, "The Language Of God" by Francis Collins. You will get a better explanation from a scientific point of view.
God bless youWow, sounds like a interesting book!
Collins rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design, so you may not want to read his book after all, WOC.
Randy, Please read my reply again. I never stated I would read the book.
I don't expect you to read anything, WOC! You have trouble enough understanding your ancient novel, much less anything factually based. Better stick to biblical fiction.
Randy, I choose not to bicker with your false assumptions of me. You seem to delight picking fights with believers on the sly. It's very evident in your posts. Have a happy day.
Nothing is on the sly, WOC. But it seems if I disagree with you I am picking a fight. Believe me, if I choose to pick a fight with someone, it will be a person able to defend themselves adequately, not you. Your responses are no challenge whatsoever.
Eaglekiwi, His goal to insult with unkind words does not bother me at all.
Nor does it bother me for you to insult with kind words. The results are the same. You know, such as saying "God bless you" to someone who isn't religious.
The science of molecular biology wouldn't exist if evolution was not correct.
Of course, your husband must have published his findings in peer reviewed journals and the entire scientific community agrees with his findings? Yet, nothing of the sort has ever come to light. Why is that? Can you provide this evidence from your husband?
I suspect though that no such evidence or proof will be forthcoming as it unlikely your husband is a molecular biologist and that your claims only support the title of this thread, if nothing else.Bless your heart Beelzedad. You do present an effective challenge. However, molecular biology exists because everything begins at the molecular level, but does not exist because of evolution. Of course, that was not your statement was it?
In the arena of cause and effect, where did evolution get its start if there were no molecules to begin with?
It does not matter to me whether you believe my husband is a molecular biologist or not, or whether he has published papers. If you are as informed as you appear to think you are, you know that there will never be complete agreement among the scientific community about evolution, climate change, or any other issues that cannot be completely explained.
I did not state that my husband works in any arena where he publishes findings about evolution. What I did say was that as a molecular biologist, he understands that intelligence is the only way life could ever have been created in the first place.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain.
God bless youThe current state of the science of molecular biology exists because evolution is correct. If evolution was not correct, there would be no molecular biology science as it currently sits.
Why were there no molecules to begin with? Please explain your claim.
I know you don't. Believers do not care if their fabrications are believed or not, which again supports the title of this thread.
Yes, there is agreement with evolution in all sciences.
Clearly, he is a very bad molecular biologist and has no idea what he's doing or it's all a complete fabrication.
You didn't explain anything, you merely continued to support the thread title.Never said there were no molecules to begin with. Instead I said there would be no way that evolution could take place without molecules. Maybe you should reread for clarity.
Of course, there is no "complete" agreement among the sciences. Otherwise, why would scientists be writing books disclaiming some of the work of other scientists. Get real here.
It is no wonder there is so much confusion when people deliberately misinterpret the words of others.
My husband can speak for himself on the issue of his intelligence and abilities. I can just tell you that, (even though you will refuse to admit the possibility) my husband has an IQ of 207. Surely that qualifies him as intelligent enough to reach his own conclusions.
God bless you sirYes, evolution can take place without molecules.
Yes, there is agreement amongst all the sciences that evolution is correct. You are free to show these books and their disclaimers.
And, when people fabricate stories to support their beliefs.
No, it does not. Nor, does it show that he is a molecular biologist. All it shows is that you are most likely fabricating more stories to support your beliefs.Then, put him on here as I have many questions regarding his so-called proof.
Like most of the thumpers, she talks, but she's afraid to back up her words. Several of us have asked her to back up her words but she cannot. She hurts her beliefs much more than we ever could. I love when these types show their ignorance on these forums. They defeat their whole purpose. LOL!
The whole title of this thread is incorrect to begin with.
Your statement only upholds the truth of the topic.
Almost everytime you, and other creationist post a reply, the title of this thread is confirmed to be correct.
When you try to destroy a well established scientific method, and replace it with the ignorant imaginations of deluded Bronze Age goat herders, dishonesty is the best tool you have in your arsenal.
I see almost no integrity among any creationists. It's really sad when one feels an obligation to lie for his/her imaginary God, in order to promote that God's "truth"I think we need to start another post about evoultion. Maybe, "Why do Evolutionists need to disprove the Existence of God? Or Maybe: "Why are Evolutionists so Angry? How about: "Why are Evolutionsists so arrogant? One more: "Why do Evolutionists throw out the concept of God and put themselves in His place."
Please feel free to start those threads. You'll find that if evolutionists are indeed angry, it is because they work hard at what they do but are constantly bombarded with lies from believers who have no understanding of what they do.
I know that it is futile but I have to say this. There are many in the Scientific community who are actually Christians. They don't feel that they have to disprove the existence of God in order to remain true to their integrity and their Science. And I know that there are Christians who are Scientists that also believe in Evolutionary theory. My problem is not with them. My problem is Scientists who have made Evolution a philosophy of life and attempt to disprove the existence of God.
When you make Evolution into a philosopy rather than a Scientific theory, you are adding baggage to it that it cannot sustain. Also, it is not Science any more. It is ideology.Charles Darwin did not set out to disprove the existence of God. It was to his dismay, as he clearly surmised that it was not up to him, but science, itself, that disproves your absurd religious books.
Just as I have a problem with Pastors who have made psychotic fairytales into a religion, then plan their whole life around this childish worldview, then attempt to disprove reality.No, there isn't.
You are free to engage or refute evolution in any manner you wish, but first you should actually have an understanding of evolution and science before you do.I didn't know that you could doubt something that can easily be proved to be fact- The fact that there are Scientists that actually believe in a supreme being!
And where is it that you see that I am wrong in my reasoning. It is not enough to just dismiss what I say by saying I need more education. Educate me by telling me where I am wrong.Oh yes, I'm sure there are a few scientists who believe in a supreme being. So what? They are scientists who are not honest with themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't carry out research or do experiments.
You don't have any reasoning, at least none that I've seen. All I can glean from your posts is that you have no understanding of science or evolution.All I am asking is how a person with any understanding can believe that a universe as vast and complex as this can ultimately arise from nothing? Your precious evolutionary theory cannot explain it. I may have said much that may or may not be scientifically valid. But surely you can see the validity of this question. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
And to say that this question will ultimately be resolved with further research is a matter of faith and not science.Unlike yourself, others have an understanding of such concepts, hence they need not just believe because their understanding follows nature and the physical laws of the universe.
Of course it can't, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Notice that you have no understanding whatsoever of these concepts yet are trying to dismiss them?
I understand those concepts and understand how nothing can come from nothing when it comes to the beginning of our universe. You on the other hand do not understand these concepts and instead are sitting here wondering how it's possible. Notice that some homework on your part will answer your questions.
Not at all, faith has nothing to do with it, it's all science. Sorry you don't understand that either.
There is no need for that. Your concept of God is so nonsensical that it doesn't need to be disproved to be dismissed. It's just that believers are too fearful, and angry to accept it.
First, I would like to see your evidence of the truthfulness of that question.
I don't know of any evolutionist who has a desire to put himself in the place of an imaginary being. Why do you feel compelled to be dishonest for your imaginary God? I thought that was the job of Satan.
Yet another post that confirms the title of this thread is correct.As to whether evolutionists believe they are god or not depends on your definition of god. One definition which applies to this discussion is: "The supreme and ultimate reality." Another is: "A person or thing of supreme value." Many people who deny a supreme being put themselves into both these categories. If man evolved and had no supreme being that created him,then he is the highest level on the evoultionary chain. He has reason and is capable of creating and manipulating things to his will. Many people, including Scientists believe that nothing is impossible for them given enough time and research. They are indeed their own gods.
And what a pitiful god they make.I doubt very much that we are at the highest level of the evolutionary chain. The only thing we have that differs to other species is consciousness...or at least as we know our consciousness to be. Many animals seem to have more heightened senses than humans. Their sight, sound, speed, agility seem to be far more advanced than ours. Says a lot about the evolutionary process and its innate ability to maintain a kind of balance.
you can even argue that...Actually I can prove you wrong, but then you seem to be nice so I won't even bother.
Actually I don't know whether we are or we are not. I was making an observation with the limited knowledge I do have. So would be great if you can explain what you understand. How is it that we (human beings) are at the top of the evolutionary chain when earth and the universe etc have been here longer than us? Does being at the top of the evolutionary chain mean something else or have a different process.
Or was your post referring to the consciousness part of my post. It really did not point to my understanding of consciousness as a whole. My main point was the evolutionary bit.it is an argument that is going on because the definition of consciousness is yet to be resolved. as for brain systems that is also under dispute. So I could run you by them or you could visit another forum that I posted and its all there.
I've never seen those definitions, where did you get them?
Here's a couple of definitions from a dictionary:
"Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people."
To have an understanding of evolution would mean one would understand there are is no such thing as the "highest level on the evolutionary chain"
Those same scientists who you consider 'pitiful' are working on cures for diseases, new energy resources, better technology to allow you to have a computer and internet connection so you can post here on these forums, which is something else scientists have provided.I got the definitions out of the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Those weren't the only definitions it mentioned, but they were in there.
As to man not being the highest level of evolution, that may not be true if you stick to the basic Science. But some adherents to evolutionary theory feel so far superior, not only to the animals but to people of differing points of view, you at least think that they consider themselves gods. It is more an arrogant attitude of "I know it all" than actually saying it.
And to the many Scientists that have helped to advance the technology that we use and all of the other advancements that have made this world a better place to live, I give my thanks and applaud them. And, I thank God that He has given them those abilities. But Science is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. Neither are the Scientists. We cannot say that Science has all the answers and no one or nothing else has any of them. Arrogance is unbecoming to a scholar.No one here has ever said science has all of the answers, GT! But science does yield obvious answers, unlike your imaginary deity. Tell me this, which god was Jim Jones following when he convinced his willing followers to kill themselves? Jesus detested church leaders you know.
yep, he hated the stupid rule book and ate without washing his hands.
I've never seen those definitions in any dictionary, Websters included, but I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's not only science, but by definition, too.
Who, for example? I have no idea as to whom you're referring?
In other words, god did it again. I'm sorry to say that those folks would be quite insulted to hear something like that considering how hard they worked themselves. They understand completely your mythical god had nothing to do with their abilities.
It's not a matter of arrogance, it's a matter of performance, which is where mythical gods and religions fail miserably at providing answers.
GodTalk, I was surprised when I first saw the title on this thread. From the first day I participated in the religious threads, many of the evolutionists have continually attacked the believer's faith and ridiculed a God who they say doesn't exist. As you can see, the repeated cycle has not ended. All is well. God is Great!
Yes. It is good to know that our God is not in the least worried about His enemies and what they might say about Him. His only concern regarding them is that He loves them as much as He does those who follow his Son. I just hope that they too may know the God who loved them enough to become one of us and then to die on their behalf.
Is your god dead? I didn't know gods could die? Can they?
No, my God is very much alive. Jesus had to become man in order to die as our substitute. His resurrection proves that He was who He claimed to be-God in human flesh.
But, you just said he died??? Here are your words:
How can your god be very much alive if he died???
Then, Jesus was a man and he wasn't a god???
That would be the same as a wolf in sheep's clothing. If Jesus was a god in human flesh, then he wasn't a man, he was a god and the flesh was nothing more than a body suit.The interesting thing about you is that you probably know what I believe already, and yet you just like to cause arguments. You know perfectly well that Jesus is both God and man, according to Christian beliefs. He had two natures when He became flesh, a sinless human nature and at the same time did not give up an ounce of his divinity. And as a man, He could indeed die. Yet He was raised from the dead and lives forevermore.
By the way, isn't the picture next to your name Einstein. Didn't he believe in a god?That is not true, you have made claims that are contradictory and I am asking for clarification.
No, I don't know that, I only know of the many similar types of claims made about Jesus that other believers here have put forth.
If Jesus was both god and man, then he was still a god, which means he could not die. As a god, he simply adorned a "human body" in order to walk and talk amongst the people. His 'body suit' was destroyed by the Romans, but that part of him that was god did not die.
But, as a god, he could not die, which means he never did die, only his 'body suit' died.
Who was raised from the dead?
No, he didn't.
How do you figure either god or Jesus made such a great sacrifice when resurrection is so easy for either of them? What had either of them to lose?
- the thing is. I absolutely can see where the bait is.
Well good evening Myth Beltran!
Where have you been lately?I was featured in the Joseph Campbell Foundation MYTH Blog!
So happy my face is posted right under Joseph Campbell's and other myth folks myth talking about it.I guess I missed that exciting event. Did I myth anything? LOL!
Nah...it's the same-o same-o, you've heard it ten million times.
Jesus gave up the glory of Heaven to spend 33 years on a planet full of people who were anything but glad to have Him there. He, the creator and sustainer of the universe, had to take on the limitations of our humanity. He had to suffer the agony and indignity of the cross and finally death. How is that easy?
Not so hard when you know you aren't really going to die. Big deal sacrifice, plenty of humans have done the same with no guarantee they could just pop back up. And what did god give up? Absolutely nothing. For all we know Yoshua didn't feel a thing. What a bogus sacrifice which actually sacrifices nothing at all.
Agony and indignity? If he was a god he would have already known what to expect. You'd have thought a god could have come up with something a little more believable.
I find it absolutely amazing, and frightening, that a grownup can actually believe something this absurd.
You don't actually believe that some mystic, sentenced to death by crucifixion really is the "sustainer of the universe" do you?
If that's true I'm absolutely sure I'm living in a parallel universe.You may have a point. Perhaps you are living in a parallel universe, complete with energy or matter that can create itself or more possibly, somehow always exist. It can cause a whole orderd universe that seems to have a designer but doesn't. This universe also seems to have the ability to "create" complex multi-celled creatures that can be so developed as to create for themselves vast civilizations, and in those civilizations they can create the technology in which they can, at the touch of a few keys, send their ideas throughout cybe=space. Sounds logical to me! LOL
Obviously, the question you gave in your comment was rhetorical. You know which God I espouse. The difference between other gods and the God of the Bible is that God came to earth when Jesus Christ was born, He lived a sinless life, died on the cross for sins and rose again.
Now before you deny that Christ was an actual a person who lived, do your homework. It is a fact backed up by secular history. As to the resurrection, I would suggest that once you've established Christ's life, then consider the evidence for His resurrection. There is a lot of material out there which talks about this. Whether you believe it or not may be another story but at least you will know why I have come to believe in the risen Christ.Please show the authentic historical documents proving Jesus lived. Other than your novel, of course. You do know Jesus wasn't his real name don't you? And what do you call your particular cult? You seem to have a problem answering direct questions don't you?
First of all what does it matter what denomination I am? I have answered that before. I am an evangelical believer who believes the major truths of the Christian faith that have been taught for more than 2000 years. If you want to know the specifics, let me know but I want to address your more important question. Is Jesus historical?
As I have said, there are many secular sources from both the 1st and 2nd century which verify that Jesus was a real man and not just myth. I will name just three from men who had nothing to gain or lose by lying because they were not even remotely Christian:
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies Jesus execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. He states: "Christus, the founder of the (Christian) name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius..."
Pliny the Younger (63-113 A.D.) Pliny admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny their faith in Jesus Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to emperor Trajan that too many citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith. I would quote him, but it is quite long.
Thallus (?-52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explaination of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar exlipse) but Africanus argues that a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets.
As I said, there are more, but this shows secular evidence for the historical Jesus.Sorry GT, but the earliest recorded mention of Jesus was 20 years after the Crucifixion was to have happened. None of those you mentioned claimed to have seen him or to have witnessed his death.
Of those you mentioned, only Thallus could have been alive at the time and he only discusses the darkness which supposedly happened during the crucifixion. The writer of the gospel of Mark is suspected of using the works of Thallus to lend credibility to the book. But I can understand how you want to believe it's true, though.As I said, I could go on but it would be futile, because you are so hardened against belief in any god that no evidence would make you believe.
By the way, I still seem to have more evidence for the historical Jesus than you have explainations as to where life came from.By the way, did you know that the historicity of Alexandar the Great and his military conquest is drawn from five ancient sources, none of whom were eyewitnesses? And the primary account of Alexandar's life was written by Plutarch around 400 years after he lived. Maybe we should doubt the existence of Alexander the Great.
This is the precise point - the existence of Alexander is corroborated by several written sources, the existence of Alexandria the city (although I only assume this was named after him) and a multitude of references at temple sites where he rebuilt or caused to be built various monuments and buildings. And not even a jesusville on the map, not one mention of him in the multitude of records that survive from that time in named sculptures or any other source except the novel. If you can't see this difference then you are a hopeless case.
The question is, is it reasonable to expect things like that which corroborate Alexandar's historicity. Jesus was not a prominent figure at the time or a government leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and he eventually suffered death like a common outlaw. The Romans wouldn't have recorded his life with an inscription or statue.
Also, Jewish archeological evidence for the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large Roman cities, and some inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate, and Festus who were all mentioned in the New Testament. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but practically nothing on ordinary folks. And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. So the odds are against an artifact's survival.
One artifact that was uncovered recently is an ossuary, a medium sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed. An inscription has been etched into the side which reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in Aramaic. After careful studies researchers determined the inscription to be genuine.
All three names were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.By the way, this has nothing to do with the last post, but I just thought I'd throw it in. Dr. Arthur Conklin, once a biologist of Princeton University wrote: "The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop" LOL!
That has been debunked so many times, it's not even funny - it's the same as the tornado in a junkyard which really cannot serve as an analogy for abiogenesis or evolution. Please look this up as anyone who says this does not correctly understand how evolution or abiogenesis works.
This goes right to the title of this thread, Simeon. This is what I mean about pastors preaching to their congregation. The listeners are trusting their souls to preachers who have no idea what they are talking about.
These preachers are respected by their church members and take their representation of, not only interpretations of biblical scripture, but matters of science they know nothing about. And the people believe it to be true.For those who don't know it is th study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life is said to have arisen on earth. Most amino acids, often called the building blocks of life, can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. I could get into how these experiments are flawed for several reasons but don't want to bore anyone any more than I already have. But despite these experiments, life has not been formed in the laboratory. And they cannot compare to the complexity of one single living cell, let alone multiple celled living organisms.
I will concede the quote since I don't know of the debunking but there are other reputable scientists that don't believe in an intelligent designer. If you want a list then I can do that.Flawed experiments huh? You mean moronic idiot scientists not as well educated as yourself drawing flawed conclusions I suppose?
Yes - the vast majority of the scientific community does not believe in an intelligent designer.
Still - seeing as you are a big fan of the scientific method now - can you provide us with some of the evidence of your Invisible Super Being please?
Thanks.So now you are saying that because the vast majority of Scientists don't believe in a god that means its not true?
Also, It wasn't me that came up with the ideas that these experiments were flawed. Just as you are, I am relying on people who have Science degrees and have spent much time looking into it. Peer review if you will.
And it is interesting that you can't see that we are both relying on faith. You in your faith of abiogenesis. Mine in the God of Genesis.Yes - I understand that you think my lack of belief is exactly the same as your faith in the Invisible Super Being.
I do not know how life (as we understand the term) started in the first instance. I said this in the past - and you know I said this.
You are the one saying that you do know how life began.
But you have failed completely to back up your assertion with any evidence - or even a reasonable argument. This is why it is considered nonsense.
If you backed your assertion with anything - I would be open to listening to you. But you do not. You do not even have a reasonable argument. So I see no reason to believe it.
Yes - peer reviews - this is how the scientific community and subsequently us laymen come to conclusions. They have concluded life evolved and that there is no need for an Invisible Super Being to be involved.
You say you know better than the entire scientific community and dispute proven facts.
I do not believe you. You have not convinced me.Once again Science has never been proven wrong, so I must bow to them no matter what they claim. Oh wait! They have been proven wrong in the past. There goes that argument!
You have not convinced me either. Oh well, there's always tommorrow.Science is proven wrong all the time. That is how we learn and adapt what we know and does not mean that it is not useful knowledge and it certainly does not mean that your default answer of majick with zero evidence is correct.
You are the one making the assertion.
You are the one claiming to know how life started.
You are the one with the burden of proof.
I do not believe you, because you talk nonsense, you are aggressive and unreasonable, and have not made any sort of attempt at reasonable argument. All you have done is disputed scientific facts using spurious and untruthful arguments and out of date Christian apologetics. We evolved. No question remains. We do not yet know how life started. You say you do know.
I am not going to convince you of anything because you already know everything.
I - on the other hand - am absolutely open to being convinced with evidence of some kind. You prove your assertion - I am on board.
So you are saying because scientists haven't created life yet that it can't be done? So if they manage to do this it will change your mind?
If you can prove god exists it will certainly change mine!LOL His argument seems to be, "We have not yet managed to create life in a laboratory. Therefore life can only come about with majick called god so you need to worship jesus or burn in hell."
Or something like that. No wonder this religion causes so many wars.But just think how he will be able to tell his flock "I fought Satan's minions and defeated them with the word of God"! And they'll say "Amen Brother"! He will smile benevolently shaking his head slowly for effect. It will be a great show and many souls will be saved! LOL!
No, you couldn't go on because you have already shown well beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of those experiments, evolution, science or much else aside from your bible.
I looked for Conklin's credentials but only found some of his sermons. A pastor apparently, and you know what that means. If you have a link where I can check out his bio I will take a look.
RD, have you ever read what Dr. Arthur Compton had to say about God? He was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, so I'd think he knew a little about science.
No, but I bet he thinks there is at least one!
I thought you might be interested because you are a seeker of knowledge. Compton's parents were religious - maybe his father was a minister? But the physicist's veiws on intelligent design are interesting. They don't agree with your views, however.
Macon is supposed to get 2 inches of snow tomorrow night! Wanna go sledding? We have 2 sleds and a saucer, and I'll share! lol
He is an interesting example of how hard it is to drop an irrational belief system that has been indoctrinated into you at a young age. Despite the fact that his theories clearly bring chance into the equation as being a prime mover in all physical occurrences - he nonetheless attempted to justify this as being intended and ended up contradicting his own work. Still - he was a preacher as well.
It is a very interesting example of the OP's question in fact. The man was obviously conflicted - his work in physics ended up directly contradicting his beliefs.
If I'm not mistaken there was also another brother listed who wasn't mentioned in the bible. As you said, common names. Like Jose and Maria in Hispanic countries. Multitudes of people with the same names.
Yes, there are mentions of factual people and places in the New Testament, but many novels use real history to make a story believable. The unknown gospel authors used historical documents to make their accounts seem reliable. They still got some of it wrong anyway.
How could he have verified it if he wasn't even born some years later. Do you see the obvious flaw here? And, there are no Roman records of the crucifixion of Jesus as state by Christians from which to verify. Do you see the obvious flaw here?
This does not indicate or proves in any way the existence of Jesus. And look, Pliny was also born many years later. Do you see the obvious flaws here?
I have no idea how this in any way shows that Jesus existed. It's nothing more than an argument to support a solar eclipse.Do you see the obvious flaws here?
What evidence? Where is it? You have not provided any evidence whatsoever.
And why in the heck would they wish to be like you guys? What nonsense! LOL!
In other words, we should engage in blatant self-deception.If you mean that the fact that you don't worry what an enemy says about you is self-deception then I disagree. No matter what you do or what you believe in life, there will be people who oppose you. The only time you have to worry about that is if what they are saying is valid. Self deception is to start believing that those who disagree with me have valid points just because they continually call me names or call in to question my character simply because I disagree with them.
And what enemy would that be, GT? Anyone who doesn't think like you?
If you knew me, you'd know that I have friends with all sorts of beliefs. For that matter, I have close friends who don't have a faith in God. To disagree with me, doesn't make you my enemy. If we met in person I would treat you with the same respect that I would hope you would me.
My enemies are enemies only because they chose to be. I can't make someone like me. And I won't waste my time fretting if they don't. It would seem a waste of energy when there are so many people who appreciate me for who I am despite what I believe-right or wrong.Likewise for me, as far as different thinking friends are concerned. I am smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt so I have to get along with believers. In fact, I spent much of my early years bored to death listening to your type of preaching. I didn't believe it then either.
I've never met a preacher I truly respected. They all get a kick out of giving their version of the scripture to their flock. A power trip, if you will. I think Jesus would not have approved of pastors. But I'm sure you disagree.I don't totally disagree. I think that there are a number of pastors who are wolves in sheeps clothing and are seeking their own interests. I think that some pastors are in it to influence people to their way of thinking rather than to that of God's Word. There are some who are getting far away from Biblical Christianity and preaching a health, wealth and prosperity gospel rather than one of redemption from sin. In so doing, they are the ones becoming wealthy. The Bible said that in the last times, people like this will arise. It is these preachers that give Christianity a bad name.
But at the same time I have met many pastors with great integrity, who love God and the people that they serve. It is my prayer that I will be able to emulate these pastors in my own ministry.
This brings to mind a discussion on another thread. It is about people who resort to name calling and insulting others on their chosen ways of "being". Be it through words or actions. People will always usually have an opinion. However, those seeds that give life to these opinions are usually within the one giving the opinion. May not necessarily have any thing to do with the person they have an opinion about.
More often than not, it is a reflection of something about ourselves we don't like.
If we know ourselves well without the self deception. We are less likely to be affected by any ones opinion even if they resort to name calling or insulting.
It has nothing to do with name calling. You know that most of what you have heard from the opposition makes way more sense than the nonsense you are asserting.Let's see! I've been called a liar, stupid, a person who speaks nonsense. My beliefs have been called magical, mythical and have been answered with sarcasm and I'm sure you can think of a few more. I think it has everything to do with name calling and nothing to do with proving a point.
From what I have seen, the people that have angrily spoken against a god are just as much people that have been hurt by religious people in the past as they are atheists. I think that is your source of rage and not God.You are so right. Nonbelievers are not angry at God, because they don't believe in God. Thank you for understanding that.
Since there is no God, then it would be nice if PEOPLE would stop lying to us about something of which they have no evidence.
There is no God. And those who keep spouting this nonsense are starting to look more and more idiotic everyday, as the stellar advances through the hard work of science render their Bronze Age Myths completely incorrect.Yes, I'm sure you'll call those who expose your flagrant fabrications for what they are as "angry atheists" and that they must have had some bad experience with religion.
There is no rage, there is only the ignorance and delusion of irrational beliefs being discussed.
Would that be the same god that you are unable to show exists or is that another one of the many, many gods someone else couldn't show existed? LOL!
getitrite, Randy- You got to be kidding
Bless your heart.
Yet, you nor anyone else has shown it to be incorrect, in fact, the exact opposite has occurred.
Bravo! Well written.
We all know that the whole belief system about Evolution has been propagated on a mere theory. That is not the scientific method of proving anything. It is just the beginning of the process. No one has ever proven the theory to be correct, although some people would prefer not to believe in God.
That is the right of every individual to believe whatever they wish. However, when an individual begins to try to convince others that their belief system is the correct one, they begin to make that belief system a religion. They are truly worshiping their own god. So true atheism only exists prior to the conviction that they must bring others on board with their way of thinking.
We don't have to prove that God exists, we just have to believe that He does. He is big enough to reveal Himself to those who seek Him.
If you do not believe that God exists, you would also have to believe that there would be no harm done if you explored the possibility. Before saying that there is no God, use the scientific method and do your own study of the facts. One should not believe anything that they have not seen proof of for themselves.
When we take the word of others, on any subject, we become followers rather than in charge of our own destinies. Real, true, independent thinkers take the time to study in order to form their own opinions.
May God bless you with an awareness of Himself.-
You still haven't answered the question.
Do you feel that evolution disproves your particular Invisible Super Being?Sorry to jump in here. But I don't see why the two don't coexist. I'm not going to look up any sites to support what should be common knowledge to most of us here. Little things like amphibians who once were only aquatic, the non-necessity of the appendix. The ability to record and research evolution has not been around long enough for us to know just how much evolution has taken place but there is no denying that it has. Man's individual lifespans are not long enough to evolve at any great rate probably because there is no biological need to prolong life in any way. The concept of ID is another, much longer argument, one which I believe would necessarily involve a discussion of intangibles and unproveables.
Evolution is a "theory" not proof of anything.
But so is your religion. There is far more proof of evolution than an invisible deity. Can you prove there isn't many god? LOL!
Oh yes Randy, there are many gods. The Bible tells us that this is true. These gods, however, are created by the people that worship them. Not true with the one true and living God.
My God may be invisible, but He is more real than anything else in my life. I did not create Him to sit on a shelf and do nothing as other faiths might do. He chose me, and then I chose to believe in Him.
He lives in my heart, and makes me who I am. I cannot prove that He exists, I can only tell you that I believe that He does. You will have to decide for yourself what you believe.
As far as evolution is concerned, read some of my other posts to find out what I believe about that. There is no irrefutable evidence that evolution is responsible for life on this earth.
Proof of God exists everywhere you look on this earth. You just have to know what you are looking for.and this is what faith is, believing without evidence. If we could walk to a place and point God out (there he is sitting on his throne) then there would be no need for faith. God tried this approach once and it did not work, people still did their own thing and this is true again, people would still do their own thing even if God were seated in jerusalem in a holy temple, the people in the usa and canada, south america, norway, germany will all do their own thing.
There is no point to proving God exists it will not make anybody holy or keep them sinless.
Once again the christians have their proof and the atheist get what they deserve.
God is just
you just contradicted yourself - you said you can't prove God exists; then said proof of God exists everywhere
No contradiction. I cannot prove that God exists to anyone, but proof of His existence is all around us.
Many people will not accept proof of any fact, even when it is presented in a scientific format, and they will tear apart that proof to see if they can debunk it.
I can prove that God exists for myself, but that is not good enough for others. I know He exists, because I have personal evidence of the fact. You would probably not accept that evidence because you most likely have preconceived notions about what God should be.
God reveals Himself to those who seek Him, but He does not force Himself upon anyone.
God bless youNotice that if one is unable to show anyone else their so-called "proof" of something, that something can only exist within their imaginations.
Then, by all means show us your personal evidence. Show us that it's not just your imagination, otherwise it appears that imagination is all you have. That's not evidence, as everyone has imaginations.
In other words you don't have any real evidence, and you want us to just accept your imagined reality as fact.
It appears that to seek God, I must first become delusional. How else does one seek an imaginary being?
And since God is not real, it is apparent that He won't force Himself upon anyone, because imaginary beings can't do anything...why? Because they are imaginary.
And yet, that's exactly what followers of other religions think about your god.
Is your god more real than the computer in front of you and the forum you're writing your words? If that were the case, you could easily show your god to everyone just like you can show your computer and these forums to everyone.
We knew that all along. It is no different from any other believer of any other religion in the world. Welcome to their world.
From that statement, it's clear to me that you have no understanding of evolution. It is also obvious your husband is not a molecular biologist.
And, what would that be, exactly?There is one major flaw with evolution!
Yes, my God is more real than anything else in the universe, he created it all. His word tells us not to "cast pearls before swine", so I guess He will decide when to reveal Himself to those who doubt His existence.
He also tells us that "it is an evil generation that is always looking for a sign."
What you believe is up to you. As a Christian, I can only present the truth to you and others, its up to you to decide whether or not you will believe it.
Of course, I understand what is meant by evolution. I understand what those who worship evolution mean by it, and what it really is. I think it is sad when others do not.
My prayer is always that God bless everyone with a full knowledge of His existence. Even satan and the demons believe, he just wants to be the one that is worshiped.
God bless youWhile I understand these are beliefs you hold and embrace, they mean absolutely nothing beyond your own imagination.
No, you do not present any truths, you only provide the myths and superstitions of the Bronze Age.
No, you do not, you have may that amply clear in your posts.
Yes, the myths and superstitious beliefs you hold are as invalid as any other religion. I understand completely.And your belief in something that supposedly happened once, but has never taken place again, is proof positive that evolution is responsible for life as we know it today.
Where are all the other blue balls out there to prove your theory. In science, it is not proof of anything if it cannot be replicated.
Where are all the other earths out there by the trillions?
Your neanderthal suppositions that life occurred spontaneously out of nothing takes greater faith than my belief in the one true and living God.
God bless youYes, what a fine christian woman you are Idamac. Writing "God Bless you" when directed to non-believer is an insult to some of us. But you know that, don't you? I would like to thank you, GodTalk, Roy, and the others for affirming the title of this thread.
None of you have shown the slightest bit of evidence supporting your belief in Creationism. I doubt any one of you can understand the most basic parts of the theory of evolution. What an education you guys must have had.
By the way, go outside and look at the stars if it isn't cloudy where you are. Aren't the stars beautiful? Did you know the light you see from distant stars has been traveling for hundreds of thousands of years since leaving the star? Funny how this can be when the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't it?
Perhaps one of you geniuses can tell me how this could happen when the universe wasn't here that long ago according to you guys. Don't all rush to answer at once! LOL!Come on believers, I'm going to ask this question until one of you brilliant creationists give a lucid answer.
Relative to what? If the universe doesn't exist, how can a non-existent star give off light in it? Your answer will explain it all, I'm sure. The scientists will be glad you've solved this enigma for them?
The scientists have already solved that for you, because you blindly assume this:
2/3(1/H)I would rather hear your version of this sequence, if you are capable of giving it. Please put it in such a way even I can understand it. Thank you so much for doing this for me.
To put it in another way for you to understand, you blindly believe in the Big Bang Theory and I don't.
I suppose you don't believe in math or physics either. No surprise to me at all. God dun it, right? LOL! Why don't you just say this every post, it's all you've got.
Yeah, I don't believe in math or physics, but you're asking me to explain it. You should at least try to understand what you believe before you make fun of what I do.
Not if you don't believe in math or physics. But do you really think I expect you to explain anything anyway? You merely like to opine without anything to back up your views. Prove me wrong by backing up your statement, if you have the ability.
I already did, and you asked to explain it in a way that you could understand it. You didn't even bother to find out what it is. You're too quick to retort. You make assertions about religious people not understanding science, when you don't understand it yourself. Figuratively, you might hear me, but you don't listen.
You have said nothing which explains my question unless you think the speed of light changes to suit you. You have no idea how to answer the question and are afraid to try. You personify the title of this thread. How typical you are of the believers here. All talk and nothing else. Bok, bok, bok! LOL! chicken $#!t!
Yes, resort to name calling when you don't understand the science of something. One day you may attempt to understand, and we can have civilized conversation about it.
You have explained nothing. Write it out instead of giving a formula or either just quit posting unless you would like everyone to answer you in the same manner. You don't have anything but are too frightened to admit it. Prove me wrong dude!
And no one called you a name either! I was merely describing your answer correctly.Your inference that formulas don't explain anything only amplifies your ignorance of the subject. You're right, only people who don't believe in God can understand anything about science. I shouldn't be explaining anything to you. It's your belief, you should be the one doing the explaining.
Why do you fell it necessary to misquote me? I didn't say formulas don't explain anything. And you are still afraid to give me your version of the answer. If not, you would do so instead of avoiding my request. You cannot do so and you know it. I dare you to try it,dude. Scared to try are you? LOL!
You are no different than the others who come on here and say things they have no basis for. Prove me wrong and I will be more than happy to apologize to you. If you are afraid to do so, then don't make statements you cannot back up.If you agree that formulas explain things, then we shouldn't be having this conversation. But we are, because you don't understand what the formula explains. No need to "prove you wrong", as long as you continue to think you're right that's all that matters. It's your world bro, we're just livin in it.
Bok. bok, bok,! LOLOLO! I understand you all right! LOL! You don't have a clue! Typical christian.
There was never any doubt you weren't knowledgeable enough to answer the question. Mainly because it would be impossible for light to escape a non-existent star Thanks for admitting it! You can leave now
Oh, so that's the answer. Why didn't you just say so.
So does this have something to do with the speed of light?
Translation- I don't know what I'm talking about! LOL!
Nope,
Translation: you should just do a little research, and you may learn something new. However, you don't speak the language, so a majority of it may not make much sense to you. You may actually, gasp, dare I say it,have to build a foundation first.Try me, I'll let you know if I can't keep up with your brilliant response.
ediggity, the reason I asked was because I remember as a result of Einsteins theory of relativity, he theorized that as an object approaches the speed of light(186,000 MPS)time slows down. Then, theoretically, if an object was to attain the velocity of light, time should, theoretically, stop.
Einstein also theorized that nothing can attain a speed faster than the speed of light...because that might indicate that time would start going backward.
No worries, I have seen this before where this member throws a dart at a board, takes whatever the dart landed on and tosses the information out making ridiculous claims and then telling everyone else to do the homework to confirm the ridiculous claim without even having a grasp of what it was they tossed out.
Seems to be batting a thousand on that.
I will admit that I myself cannot prove the evolution theory...nor can I prove the creation theory...I can prove that I exist...at least in my own mind at least...and other than that fact I really don't care how I got here. I will say that my Mother and Father created the body that I currently reside in... Using the bible as evidence is at best only a partial picture...as vast portions of the (scriptures) aren't even included in the bible that is followed today. And what about Greek or Roman "mythology"...we can't discount those theories either...(By the way Zeus and Apollo are mentioned in the book of Acts) so let us research all the "creation" theories if that is the "facts" we wish to follow...Just thinking out loud...
Doesn't hurt to think out loud. We usually learn something when we do.
I will never deny the existence of other gods, but they are not true and living ones like Jehovah God is. The Great I Am is the only true and living God and the one that created everything that was ever created.
Other gods are the creation of the people that worship them. Yes, Zeus and Apollo may be mentioned in the Bible, but they are not mentioned as worth of worship, and may have been created by the people that worship them.
There are some theories about them that are worthy of consideration. The Bible mentions that the Angels came down to earth and mingled with humans. That could be where Zeus and Apollo came from, I am not sure. If this is the case, people might have worshiped them due to the awesome nature they exhibited.
God bless youYou seem to miss the point.. I guess I should say this...If we are to "believe" the bible...then we should also look into the gods of the greeks and romans that are prior to the gods of the christian faith...since we were not present to see certian things for ourselves...then we must consider that any written word on gods could in fact be true and thus the "one true living god" could in fact be Zeus, Odin, Ra or any of the other gods listed in various texts. We are all free to believe as we feel is correct...but unless something can be proven as fact it is just a belief and therefore an unproven theory...and since the bible is only one version of gods, I would not conclude this one as the "proof"...
With all due respect, it is not true that Zeus, Odin, Ra or any other god predates the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is the same God that created the universe. Therefore, He predates everything else.
Um, that logically applies to any God a person believes in--not any specific God. Objective indicators of specific gods with specific proporties do have different histories--with 'one god' systems coming after 'multi god' systems.
I didn't say that Zeus, Odin or anyone else predated any god...I simply stated that since there written words with other gods listed besides just the bible who is to say which one is correct...And just as a side note...have you studied any other mythologies aside from the bible...if not then how would you know which "religions" gods came first...the Christian "god" didn't come around until sometime between the 1st and 3rd century...the Jewish "god" has been "around" since about 1600BC...so either you are Jewish or you believe in a different god than what you are claiming...I.E. the Jewish God...which in case you don't know...doesn't have a "Son called Jesus"...nor does he have a "Holy Spirit". Now At this point I am going to say something that is "My Opinion Only" Beliefs are a good thing...I have my own beliefs...But I don't attempt to pass my beliefs off as "facts, truths, or unchangable" While the bible has alot of good thoughts it is in the end still just a book...same as the books on mythology or various other belief systems...and since none of us can personally verify the accuracy of any of them, we have to take from them the understanding that we get from them and nothing else...If someone walks around claiming that "god" is speaking to him and that we all must jump around in a circle 3 times before crossing a street...we would call him crazy...yet we as humans are willing to believe the "facts" of a book written many years ago from a time when most people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth...Learning things for yourself and not blindly accepting something because everyone else is doing it... is a very enlightening experience...I agree, Double Scorpion, we should all research for ourselves in order to not just be following anything blindly.
My God is the same God of the Jewish people, and yes He does have a Son and His name is Jesus. Just because the Jewish faith does not recognize the Son does not mean that the Father is not one and the same.
My God, and the Jewish God did come first at the very beginning of creation. He has no beginning and no end. That means that all other gods came after Him. It also means that all other gods are man made and of no effect.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
God bless you
One God, different interpretations.
Kinda like my cat. I call my cat precious. He is fiesty. He wanders off to my neighbours, they call my cat midnight. He is always hungry. Then he wanders off to another neighbour, they call him ceefa. He is always sleepy.
Same cat different perceptions, different name.but he is your cat and you told them his name. Since it is only a cat i would say the name is not all that important but lets say instead of your cat, your son went next door and they called him jimmy and the other neighbor sam and you called him bob... you might be inclined to tell them the truth and if they chose not to believe you....
You can see how the cat scenario is not really applicable here.Yes, I told them his name after they named him and after they had their own perception of his dominating nature.
Agree it is probably not applicable though because God does not belong to any one religion. God just is. Religions will claim it as their God and I see nothing wrong with that unless they claim that another interpretation of God is wrong.
People make God wrong or right, this or that or the other. God doesn't.
God doesn't physicall exist. Love doesn't either.
how many times do we hear the 'just a theory' refrain. Please learn what the difference between a hypothesis & scientific theory is
Very good Baileybear. You have done your homework. I must say that I appreciate the explanation. Not everyone takes the time to be as thorough as you have. Some would rather throw stones than to take the time to explain their thoughts.
I especially like the part that tells us that a theory is always under scrutiny.
I have to say here that I do not worship at the feet of science. The reason for this is that after several decades, I have noticed that science contradicts itself frequently. Often that contradiction comes too late for some. Sometimes its application is more detrimental than beneficial as well.
An example of that would be science applied to farming. Chemicals applied to farmland are supposed to be to help increase food production as well as provide better crops.
Yes, science is involved with farming, and nearly every other product that we purchase to make our lives better, including the vaccinations our children are compelled to undergo. No, I am not bashing vaccinations, there is not yet enough evidence of their potential for harm.
We also see lots of additional nutrients added to the food we purchase at grocery stores. This is supposed to be designed to better nourish our bodies. Science is involved here.
Building greater amounts of, and better food should create better health right?
Science applied to create more and better has seen a rise in the incidence of such disorders as diabetes and autism and cancer to name a very few.
I remember when the incredible edible egg took it on the nose as harmful to heart health, several years back. So did fat in our diets. Margarine was also touted as being better for us than natural butter. Science has since reversed itself, to some extent on those.
The scientific community often uses its knowledge to create substances that have the potential to do great harm to the masses, and encourages us to imbibe. Sure, I know that their intentions are good, but these substances are usually at the behest of conglomerates who just want to increase their bottom line.
I believe that adding unnatural chemicals to the body, regardless of its form, is detrimental over the long run.
Okay, so maybe I got off subject a little here, but my intention was to say that I do not rely on science as my sole source of knowledge. I ,hopefully, am intelligent enough to review the information and come to my own conclusions.
If you have read some of my other posts here, you will know that I do not disagree that evolution takes place, I just disagree that it is responsible for creating any kind of life, and that it created any species.
Science has never been able to completely prove that it has, no matter how some may try to convince us that it has.
God bless youSometimes zealots conveniently, and grossly, overlook the all of the livesaving discoveries that science has contributed over the years.
I'm sure there was no sense in Jonas Salk using science to create a vaccine for polio--or Luis Pasteur using science to discover the process of pasteurization, but they pale in comparison to the scientist in the following list:
Scientist #Lives saved Discovery
2. Karl Landsteiner 1.038 billion blood groups that led
to transfusions.
3. Norman Borlaug 245 million high-yield wheat.
4. Abel Wolman 173 million water chlorination.
5. Edward Jenner 122 million smallpox vaccination.
6. Bill Foege 122 million vaccine strategy that
eradicated smallpox.
7. John Enders 114 million measles vaccine.
8. Howard Florey 80 million penicillin
(first antibiotic).
9. Gaston Ramon 58.5 million diphtheria and
tetanus vaccines.
10. David Nalin 51.3 million oral rehydration
therapy for choleraYes, these are wonderful contributions of real science. People trying to use the theory of evolution to explain away the need for a creator is not.
By the way, one of the contributions of Pasteur and his pasteurization process was to debunk the theory of spontaneous generation which had held sway for centuries. This theory held that lower forms of life could come into being by the interactions of inanimate matter. For example, Aristotle thought that eels developed from river mud, putrefying meat was thought to turn spontaneously into maggots. Redi in 1686 disproved the latter, showing that if meat were covered in fine wire gauze, it putrefied but remained free from maggots, which instead hatched out on the protective covering where the flies had deposited their eggs. However, the idea of spontaneous generation in relation to microorganisms, such as Leeuwenhoek's animalcules, persisted until Pasteur's experiments on fermentation in Paris in 1861. Pasteur demonstrated that when organisms from the air were excluded from heat sterilized solutions like sugar solutions and urine, fermentation failed to take place. So Pasteur showed that the solutions did not generate their own microorganisms.
So Science was very useful, not only in the pasteurization procees itself, but was able to show that there isn't any evidence in nature, that we know of, that life can come from non-life.Science "was useful" but not for anything going against your novel, apparently. Still believe there were no rainbows until after the flood, even though we know rain isn't really required to produce them? That the light spectrum was non-existent until your god said it was okay?
I see you just chose one small phrase out of what I said to criticize. We are making progress. By the way, your answer my question on how life got here and I will answer yours.
First, tell me how god got here and how you know there is only one of them! Any proof you can show me?
And I've never had a problem with you telling the truth. LOL!
He'll get to that as soon as he thoroughly debubnks evolution.First of all, I never said that I disagree with the science that living things can adapt with changing environments in order for them to survive. That is clearly shown through the evolutionary theory. Where I can't go and where evolutionary theory breaks down is one species evolving into another. The fossil records clearly aren't there because they don't exist and never have. And, as you've said ad nauseum, evolution doesn't explain how life began and wasn't meant to do so. But the problem with this is, if it can't do this, then you cannot say that it proves that a god is unnecessary.
Neither does it prove the necessity of a God.
But let us say, just for the sake of argument, that it necessitates a God. Okay, where is this God? Surely he doesn't reside only in the pages of a Bronze Age book written by dubious authors, and which is full of ignorant superstitions, and contradicts itself and the laws of nature repeatedly.
Come up with a more reasonable God, then, prove this reasonable God exists, through a rigorous scientific method, and peer review, then you will have no problems. Good luck!
Great! But I just wish that this would, somehow, in someway, support your belief in a magical Sky Fairy. It just doesn't. Do you see what I mean?
Don't overlook them, just separate them. Some scientific discoveries have done great good for mankind. At least they have put an end to some diseases.
I stated my concern for some of the uses for science used improperly.
It is when they use science to create things that do us harm that I take issue with. Science used properly can be good, its when it is used to promote an erroneous ideology that it is
There is no sudden death warning on a gallon of milk, but nearly all pharmaceuticals produced in the past 20 years list sudden death as a side effect. Not so with a gallon of milk or stick of butter or a dozen eggs.
Science creates substances that have the potential to do good, but often, as I am sure you have noticed yourself, after causing enough deaths or disabilities, they have to be recalled or discontinued altogether.
God bless youI still don't think that is an ample reason to take the negative stance you have taken against science.
With just about anything there are side effects. With air flight came air crashes, so should we stop commercial airlines, and virtually slow progress to a crawl?
Science is not restricted to food. You seem to have an obsession with food. It seems you have some kind of experience with some of the side effects of plant and/or livestock engineering.
Science is a method, hence it can't contradict itself, by definition.
Please explain exactly what contradictions you refer. If they are so frequent, it should be easy to offer several examples.
Hence, it has nothing to do with the scientific community as they do nothing but research and development, it is the "conglomerates" who do the harm to increase their bottom line.
If you're going to dole out blame, dole it out to where it is deserved.
You are free to believe that just as you are free to believe in an invisible god, neither being substantiated.
It is clear by your posts that you don't understand those concepts, hence have no basis for disagreement. How can you possibly disagree with that which you have no comprehension?
Again, science is a method and isn't out to prove anything. If someone understood the concept of science, they would never say such things.
nothing scientific about evolution,It changes like the wind.theory does not match with the eveidence there4 should be thrown out and not preached in schools
Why do you refuse to answer my question? Or do you merely make stuff up like the other creationists on this thread?
How is the Judeo-Christian worldview any more narrow than that of evolution, or at least the form you seem to be espousing which seems to totally discount the possibility that there are things, beyond the empirical evidence that can be examined by the eyes. To think that Science has all the answers and religion has none is arrogant to the extreme.
it is true, they do have a very narrow world view and it is sad. i feel bad for people like this, and its not just the creationists. but yes, evolution could be god's greatest creation, perhaps he was just the spark.
Hmm, I sat here and considered the OP question, when it occurred to me it was rhetorical.
A creationist and an evolutionist are in the same classification.
One of the science entities assumes or accepts written documentation as validity (the creationist) while the other --oh wait, they do too, just different documents.
So, then, I asked myself which documents best "prove" either.
The results was actually a tie. Because both sets of documents were not designed to prove a thing, only to further a cause --keep the fires burning-- under these ideologies. In which case both elements of the scientific engagement are recumbent --or at least not testing the actual points thoroughly on either side to provide humanity with at best a valuable measure of the soluble tonic that will momentarily quench their thirst.
nonetheless, it was great reading!
BTW, as for the statement BB, why don't they follow the bible? The bible is a book, most cling to as an absolute --even to the point of worship. Seriously. But also, some worship other books -- disassociated theology with still result in the same result.
James.We have already been there on this thread as I see it similar to the way you have. haha.
Nope, evolutionary scientists do not believe their research is going to save their souls. Nor do they depend on their books to do so either.
Scientists challenge each others findings, religionists try to support each other in upholding the untruths in the bible scripture. Sorry you cannot tell the difference.
A lot of the old testament of the bible was originally written by the Sumerians, in Babylonia, around 4,000 b.c. Zechariah Sitchen's books are based on his translations of the ancient sumerian clay tablets and answered a number of questions I've always had about religion. i.e., 1) why were the early greek, egyptian, roman (and Sumerian) religions polytheistic?, 2) how is it that scientists never found the so-called missing link in human evolution? 3) why would an all-powerful creator be a jealous and vengeful god portrayed in the old testament? Sitchen's explanation was that the human race (or adami) were genetically engineered by a race of beings whose year was 3600 years long. They are the 12th planet in our solar system and came here to mine gold needed to preserve the atmosphere in their planet. The adami (humans) were created by splicing Annunaki genes with indigenous primates in south africa to create workers to mine gold and grow food for the "gods" who lived both on earth and in "heaven" in an orbiting space craft. They gave mankind all his knowledge of agriculture, metallurgy, astronomy and astrology, the first written language, all of which suddenly blossomed simultaneously in Babylonia some 6,000 years ago. It was related by the eye witnesses in the first written history of mankind. It could be myth and superstition, and so could the bible, but the fantastic story has a resonance of reality to me.
Because creationists haven't evolved!
Badumpbump.....HA!
Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week.It actually has to do with ignorance of what one is saying when one claims creationism or, concomitantly, evolution. Both claims require adherents that base their claims on a thing called faith. Creationists have faith that God created the planet in six 24-hour days, basing their faith on a theology that eliminates the law of physics, which God created. Evolutionists are just as guilty. They postulate that regardless of the existence of God or the nonexistence thereof, the spark began when once again the huge mass exploded and began moving outward while reformulating into the great universe as we know it today. The problem is that by taking God out of the quotient, evolution itself becomes a religion with a faith that everything must have happened as the greatest minds think it did. Life from nonlife is popular but that too violates physics.
I am neither creationist nor evolutionist. In 2 Peter it says that one day is with Jehovah as 1000 years and vice versa. In Isaiah, Jehovah is described as pure energy--and we all are familiar with E=mc(square).
I agree with those who are disturbed by the claims of creationists, but I tend to think they are letting misdirected faith to take over. I also believe that of the evolutionists. The truth is that God is not subject to time as we know it, something that He created for us, anyway.This is nsot correct in any way. Creationists rely solely on faith because there is no evidence of any kind to support the idea - NONE. Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence that people ascribe to because they can believe the evidence that can be felt, touched and seen to fit together down the ages. Claiming any kind of relationship between the two issues is bul@@it and you know it.
If it were only that simple. Scientists do not have faith in something which they do not know is true. This is why several different dating methods cross check each other when testing the age of fossils.
If a scientist is wrong, it will eventually be discovered by other scientists. This is science and no particular speculation is worshiped as being true. Vastly different than the approach to religion. It wishes to be accepted as true without anything to show that it is, or isn't.
Edit : Sorry China Man, beat me to it!
So could you explain to me exactly how God created time?That was the easiest one of all. The Bible states that Jehovah is "Eternal" and "from everlasting to everlasting." There is only one way that He can achieve this: the lack of time as we know it. Note that this is a lack of time "as we know it". He is also said to be able to see the end of a matter before the beginning of it. Again, this is a indication that He has some other factor that has come into play here, a factor in the great beyond that is lost to us.
Having created the universe, with its galaxies and solar systems, and stars and planets, novas and supernovas, He recognized the need to set a timetable, one that would allow humans to govern themselves as they conduct their daily chores. This timetable probably began with the creation of the earth many huge eons ago.
Why do evolutionists tell such outrageous LIES to attack creationists?
If someone wants to believe in God, does not he/she have the right to do so?
If another person chooses not to believe in God is that not their right?
Why is Christianity such a sore point in the hearts and minds of people who claim God doesn't exist? If you're right about His non-existence, what are you worried about?
Why can't you go on with your lives, instead of posting the same thread again and again using different titles?
Why don't people who claim Christians are trying to shove God down their throats realize they are doing the same thing as they try to disprove God's existence and man's need for Him? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Do people not have religious freedom in America? Or is relligious freedom reserved for all except for those who call upon the name of Jesus?
Why can't you do more constructive things with your life and your time, instead of trying to continually belittle those who don't believe as you?That question has been put to Christians for 2000 years.
And yet it wasn't a Christian who started these threads to try to belittle others and make youselves feel more superior. Well from what I've witnessed your beliefs aren't any more superior to mine or the majority of the world that believes in a supreme being of some kind. You have just as many things you simply assume to be true, just because someone has told you it is so. "What breathtaking and astounding ignorance", to quote someone famous.
No - this thread was started because you and others that believe as you do tell lies in support of the weird ideas of creationism. After hundreds of posts and prevarication we still have not seen one item of EVIDENCE to support (not prove, just support) your ideas.
Attacking evolution and science to try to bring it down to your level is not evidence of any kind it is an attemp t to blur the lines to a retarded point where your retarded ideas can exist.
If you can't give any evidence that the world started 7000 or so years ago or that we all started from the instantaneous arrival of two people around 7000 years ago - then you should go back to your drawing board and try to find some. In the process of failing to do so you might get some grasp of evolution. You might also get some enlightenment of how science works, you might even get to thinking for yourself.As if you are thinking for yourself. I could be wrong but are you a Scientist? Maybe you are, but I would be willing to bet that you haven't made any of these so called Scientific discoveries but are relying on people who have told you things. In this case it is that the whole universe came from nothing and even though it looks like it has design, it clearly cannot be designed because there just cannot be a creator. And life, clearly can come from non-life even though it goes against all of the known laws of the universe as we know it. Just given enough time, the impossible is possible.
You call my creator a magical being. Well how magical is your belief that a whole universe just came into being on its own!For the record, I have nothing against real Science. I believe that the dedicated men of Science have done much to make this world a much better place in which to live. But Evolutionary theory, in so much that it tries to go beyond showing how living things are cabable of adapting to differing environments, is clearly unprovable and unscientific. And many people, denying the existence of God, have tried to make it into a whole philosophy of life. That is the thing to which I am opposed.
You ask me to prove what I believe. I challenge you to prove to me that this universe, and everything in it came ultimately from blind chance. You can't and never will be able to do this. So don't mock the faith of others when your proof is so weak.I do not dispute that a creator of some kind could exist - any more than I dipute the possiblity of alternative universes. I do dispute the ridiculous creationist twaddle and that any person would be required to bow down and worship this thing if it exists - and even more ridiculous is the idea that you or anyone else would know what 'it' might be thinking and what 'it' might want - and yet even more utterly moronic is the idea that the possible 'it' might want a bunch of half-educated peasants kneeling at its feet moaning and muttering and asking it to send their kids to disney while it allows 'other' kids to starve to death daily.
And you still have not offered one piece of EVIDENCEthat might support your delusional thinking.If I thought that you were actually seeking answers then I might take your questions more seriously. The whole of creation is proof that there is a designer. And if you were truly wanting to know if God exists, and specifically the God of the Bible, you should ask Him to make Himself known to you. Those who truly seek God with their hearts will find Him. But I suspect that you've closed yourself off to that.
Yet, there is ample evidence contained within this thread, some of it provided by you yourself that shows just how much Christians support the thread title.
What beliefs are you referring?
That's entirely not true. With science, I am able recreate any experiment (funding permitted) that scientists have found working theories for and can reproduce the same results. In other words, I can see for myself rather than just take someones word for it.
Yes, it is.
Wow. That's a lot of replies. Has anyone actually changed their thinking or learned anything from all of this?
I certainly have! The answer to the OP's question, for one thing.
What part ? Here is one for you.
Creationists are group of liar's attacking evolution without any empirical proof. Just by publishing hubs on hubpages attacking evolution with resources of Art graduate PHD holders commenting on biological evolution, or bible verses as credible source is another way from them to show you the approach they take to attack evolution.
I hope that is digestible for starters.There are creationists with PHDs in geophyics, geology, astronomy and biology. They have researched and provided empirical proof. I don't know that any of them are on hubpages but they do provide extensive resources on the web if you're willing to take the time to look.
There are creationsts Ph.D.'s. Empirical proof? Hardly.
Jonathan Wells, author of some anti-evolution books, went back to school to get a PhD with the sole purpose of discrediting evolution (which he calls Darwin). All he's done is discredit himself.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08 … lly-0.html
There's a geologist, Andrew Snelling, PhD that gets paid for consulting (where he quotes rock ages in millions of years) and then moonlights for creationists (where he writes stuff totally contradictory). Hmmm, more lies.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htmIt is not anti-biblical that age of Universe and the same time the earth is not billions years old.
why do so many doctors accept evolution?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01 … .html#more
skyfire,
You assume sound logic, however your logic is flawed! Just you being here fighting for your view point proves what I am saying.
For true evolution, you would never waste your time on the weak counter statements that others bring up.
It always amazes me just how someone so highly educated would ever get rapped up in such an empty believe. Even I struggle with the idea of getting something from nothing. I just lack that much "BLIND" faith. At least with creation, there is something that is the starting point. Regardless of whether or not I can explain it.
If I were to think that everything started from nothing and that nothing was in control of it, wow, that is real faith! So to test or proof your believe, just hold out your hand and see how long it takes for something to appear without anyone or anything helping. Let me know when something of value appears like a diamond, a car or a new super computer.
If this test is not to your liking, then maybe you will like this one instead. Have you ever received the help from anyone including medical help?
If you where a true to evolution, you would have rather died instead of violating the most basic law of evolution, survival of the fittest!
Anything short of this would be a high crime against all of humanity!
This would even include getting help from someone in order to improve learning.
Now, as far as I am concerned, I could never buy into anything that extreme, I just do not have that much faith. While it maybe easy to buy into the basic concept, I truly believe that most people never take time to really think it through to see if there is even soundness to their way of thinking.
Now, with all of this moved over to the sidelines. I would like to ask you a question directly. You sound pretty smart, are you a ultra high stakes gambler?
If both of us do what is good for those around and the only difference is our believe in the source of all things. Even if I am wrong, nothing will ever happen to me for my being off target. However if you are found wrong in your believe and stand before that Creator whom you refuse to believe and accept. Then you will be judged by him with absolutely no defense to stand behind.
I would much rather be ridiculed for what I believe right now and take a chance of playing the fool then find myself the fool then. How about you?Here is a wager for you:
Hold out your hand and let me know when your creator appears.
It appears that you have no problem with a creator appearing from nothing. Why is that? What evolutionist do is just delete the unnecessary step.
What is the necessity of a God, if by his own existence proves that something can come from nothing, to argue that something can't come from nothing.But what if you are worshiping the wrong god? Have you even considered this? Of course you haven't, or you wouldn't have made the silly statement of there being no harm in believing in your god. Better rethink your illogical post, dude! LOL!
Franz that was well said. I am with you. I would rather be ridiculed here in this life by people who would prefer that I kept my mouth shut, than to miss the mark entirely and face my Creator with no hope.
God bless you
they say Darwin is responsible for eugenics, abortions etc
Yes, Baileybear. When you reduce man to something akin to animals, without a spirit, you can do whatever you want with them. Of course, then you begin to worship the animals.
Why else would it be so important for some to promote such a fallicy?
God bless youNot something akin to animals. Sorry, but we just happen to be the animals with the most intelligence on this planet. We are mammals, do you disagree with this statement?
And what proof do you have that animals have no spirit, or that humans do?Hey Randy, thanks. I stand corrected. I thought about the animal part before I wrote it but I felt that some people wouldn't have understood what I was meaning. I can see that you did.
Yes, we are higher than the animals, not just because we are more intelligent. We were made in the image of God. I know you will not believe that, and certainly won't agree with it.
God bless you
I'm a Christian, but I'm not convinced that animals don't have spirits - especially those beloved by humans. In fact, I'm almost 100% convinced that dogs and horses have spirits. Cats? Maybe not. lol
You know, habee, I am not certain of that one myself, I have to admit. I can't remember reading in the Bible whether they do or not. I have to believe that they do not simply because they were given to man by God as food, so that would lead me to believe that they do not.
I know we humans love our pets, and that they seem to love us. I have several dogs and agree with you that they sometimes seem to be almost human.
We have to remember that the spirit is what lives after we are dead. Maybe there is an animal heaven and maybe there is not. For me that is not important.
God bless youHumans are eaten by animals sometimes, perhaps more often in very ancient times. I suppose your god gave us to some of them for food too.
As if who eats who makes a difference in which species have souls.And yet, all domesticated dogs evolved from wolves and it was humans who engineered the evolution.
But dogs are not a different species from wolves. All are canines. And yes humans can do such engineering.
Dogs are a sub-species of the canine family, just as wolves are. Just as we are primates and so are chimps and gorillas.
Yes, Canines are a species that include fox and coyotes. They all evolved from a common ancestor.
Primates are also a species that include humans, apes, gorillas, etc., which also all evolved from a common ancestor.
And, sometime much earlier than that, Canines and Primates both evolved from the same common ancestor.
In other words, it can be done. Glad you agree.Sorry for the short answer before. Had to run.
If we are related to chimps and gorillas, why can we not replicate with them. Dogs and wolves are related and they can interbreed and replicate. Pretty simple and straight forward. The true scientific method of evaluating conceptual life.
Dogs and wolves have compatible blood makeup, but it is not even close with humans and apes.
Primate is the genus while homo sapien is the species for humans
For dogs, Canis is the genus while wolf is the species. Dogs are the subset of the species wolf because they were selectively bred for the desired traits.
God bless youThe very same reasons wolves do not replicate poodles. Was that supposed to be a serious question?
That is entirely not true. You are either fabricating stories or you simply don't know.
It has nothing to do with blood type, again you are fabricating stories and only supporting the thread title, again.
Very sad indeed when believers have to stoop to those levels to support their beliefs.Hey Beelzedad, I thought you were more intelligent than that. I didn't say that wolves could replicate poodles, but I did say that dogs and wolves could breed and reproduce young.
Maybe I should have used the term reproduce, but then you would have probably taken issue with that. What I was saying was that dogs and wolves have similarities in blood, making it possible for them to interbreed and produce offspring that is something other than either breed to begin with.
Man and ape cannot do that. Hitler tried but failed during all of his experiments to manipulate life. I know, it wasn't Hitler that performed the experiments, but he commissioned the deeds.
You know, it does not demonstrate any kind of intelligence when those who worship the theory of evolution stoop to accusing others of lies, when they present facts to support their beliefs.
The true test of a theory is whether or not something can be replicated. I gave you clear evidence that man did not evolve from the ape, or monkey or any other animal. We simply are not compatible according to the real scientific method.
While we are on the subject of replication, in terms of proof of scientific fact, why did the big bang only happen once?
Of course, I don't know if you believe that it was a big bang that started life as we know it or not. However, many evolutionists do.
So what is your answer to the question about that first episode that supposedly was the origin of life? Why is there not another blue ball out there that proves replication of the big bang theory. If it has happened once it should have happened trillions of times. So, where is your evidence for that?
Science has its own way of routing out lies, so why has it not dealt with this one? Is it that science has its own agenda, and disproving something that is beneficial to their cause would in fact disrupt that agenda? By the way, what is that agenda?
God bless youThat is incorrect. Again, blood has nothing to do with it.
More fabricated stories to support the thread title.
Try presenting some facts, then.
That is not evidence, that is your own personal contrived and uninformed assertion.
Yes, nice deflection to your fabrications.
Yes, once caught red-handed fabricating stories, the believer baits and switches and deflects the burden of proof onto others. Very sad, indeed.
And, to further the deception, more fabrications are brought into the argument.
You continue to support the threads title.Wow, Beelzedad, I am amazed. Up to this point I thought you were intelligent. The statement that blood has nothing to do with it shows the contrary.
Maybe you should go back to the books and study a bit more. You are embarrassingly ignorant of the facts.
Life begins when the ovum receives a compatible sperm. One of the first things that takes place then is that it finds the compatible nucleus which contains the blood molecules or hemocytes.
That allows for a viable ovum, and the zygote is formed. Without this compatibility, there is no zygote development, because one of the first things that is produced when the zygote turns to embryo is a continuing supply of blood being developed from both sides of the developing zygote.
It takes on its own blood characteristics developed from the two blood sources, (the ovum and the sperm) which gives us our system of blood typing.
By the way, when you wrestle in the mud with a pig its important to know that the pig is having fun, so if you are going to do it have fun and enjoy it.
It is awesome how so many people use opinion instead of fact to base their beliefs upon. The result of this is chaos, each and every time. Chaos is a tool of the ignorant. When chaos is present, people are easily confused and overlook the obvious truth, because it does fit into the ignorant agenda.
Seriously, Beelzedad, look it up. Don't take my word for it, do your own research for the facts.
God bless youwat a "blood molecule"?
wat a "hemocyte"?
Far as I know the former does not exist and the latter is present only in invertebrates.
Dear me.
Perhaps when you add links to your husband's published works - we will find out?
Hey Mark, good to see you are following my comments.
Sorry you missed my post that told you that my husband does not have published works about the falicy of evolution, nor does he have to have in order to understand molecular biology.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio … m/hemocyte
Everything is made of molecules, whether it is flesh and blood and bones, or the computer you are looking at.
You may wish to take the advice I gave to beelzedad. A little actual study may do you a world of good.
Better luck next time kind sir.
God bless you
and about an author of books of lies, Jonathon Wells
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/here's a scathing review about Jonathan wells
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08 … cally.html
The concept of evolution, which is an unproven theory, can at times be maliciously hurled at people who don't want to accept it in classroom settings or in the workplace, by people who wish to encroach on the beliefs of others. I for one don't think it is the theory it's self that should be attacked as much as the way that it is delivered by some pessimests.
If the theory is proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt that man came from monkeys, then our religious beliefs become invalidated to a certain extent causing some people to discard them. But then it might be possible that a hundred years from now somone proves evolution to be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then what? Oops we made a mistake, I guess you can go back to believing in God again.
The bottom line is bible study is not part of the cirriculum and niether should Darwinism be part of it.
If you lived in China you would be required to learn about Communism and what a great guy Mao was. The same thing could happen to the rest of the world if we let it.goes to show you know absolutely nothing about evolution if you think evolution is about man coming from monkeys.
Clearly you are ignorance about what evolution is, but you are saying it shouldn't be part of the curriculumThe government dose pay for evolution to be taught in schools, where Creation theory is not, unless it is a religious school.
Have you read my Creationist Hub?just had a look - very short & said nothing of substance. I have 2 hubs on evolution.
Creation shouldn't be paid for.There is a Creation Museum in Canada also, they want to run these Creation Museums in every major City in North America and have the Government pay for them.
I think that is something of substance in spreading of liesOmnusonus...
Firstly, there's no such thing as an unproven theory. Science never claims ever to have absolute facts. A theory is something waiting to be disproven. If you have the evidence to disprove evolution, then it's no more a theory. You wiill need to go to school to learn how to disprove a theory, though. The bible doesn't disprove things.
"If the theory is proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt that man came from monkeys, then our religious beliefs become invalidated to a certain extent causing some people to discard them."
And that's the real issue, isn't it? People who believe that the bible is the literal word of god cannot afford to have one word discredited, because, if one word is discredited, then everything else can be discredited as well. And that's very scary for those who want to believe in superstition, which is what all religions are.
"The bottom line is bible study is not part of the cirriculum and niether should Darwinism be part of it."
That's rather like saying, "The bottom line is experimenting with cocaine isn't part of the curriculum and so computer science shouldn't be either." In other words, there is no correlation between bible study and Darwinism.What is bother me is that all this atheistic nonsense is political.
creation 'science' & intelligent design is definitely political
Castlepaloma,
They may be paying to spread lies by teaching evolution, ever think about that?
Evolution requires far more faith to believe than Creation does. There used to be a web site owned by a science teacher gone preacher, IDK if it's still up and running but it is presented from a Creation perspective, you should be able to get passed that, some evidence is presented that might give you some insight and perhaps clarity on your dilemma. It has been my experience that the lies are coming from the other direction. I have heard some fantastical stories fly across a pulpit now and again (mostly southern pulpits) but nothing harmful and certainly not lies, embellishments to make a point. I'm not saying I agree, in fact I'm sympathizing with you. You seem to have been hurt in some way, maybe by a religion that has let you down? When you research a topic it should be done from all perspectives, the truth lies somewhere in both sides of a story. Unless you are not searching for truth but rather to prove your point? drdino.com
Try to keep up at the back son !!!
Darwin's work is no longer theory, for the most part it is now well established and proven backed up by the more recent scientific research into DNA and Genetics.
Picking up on Baileybear's original Point why do Creationists tell such outrages lies.... You sail right in there with the Monkey Story again.... (and not for the first time ) Darwin NEVER SAID IT OR EVEN THEORISED ABOUT IT OK ? What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor. Guess what, DNA and Genetics proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he was correct.
Even the Pope and the Vatican accept it as fact !!!!
Darwin should be taught in school because it is science, and as science it is there to be challenged and tested by those who come after him.... that's how the system of further development and enlightment works.
Being in constant denial is not a reasonable argument, Creationalism is a nice story but that's all it is and ever was to believe it still has merit shows a fairly limited understanding of any science that I am aware of, but there again when I want to learn something new I research it and look at both sides not just one .....
Can you honestly say the same ?other blantant lies by hubbers here include made-up quotes (ie LIES! )such as 'Darwin didn't believe in his theory' and Darwin said, 'I hope I did a good job of destroying God.'
look what J.Wells said: "[Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism."
Wow. It is almost painful to believe that somebody would actually say something that stupid.
it was a wasted effort - this man has no credibility
"What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor. Guess what, DNA and Genetics proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he was correct."
You could have read the BIBLE and found out that we have a common ancestor. Way to go Darwin and genetics, you've proven what the BIBLE has stated for thousands of years.I'm only observing what your fellow evolutionist had to say, but always glad to be a contributor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo"Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution
funny and sadI honestly think we are heading that way, helped as always by religious dogma.
LOL, at least someone liked it, or unfortunately. Yes, funny and sad. I thought the movie was pretty good.
I think it was good, just my emotions running.
I’ll just go away and lie down within a darkened room until I calculate if you are trying to be sarcastic or simply Obtuse !
I am doing neither. Simply making an observation about what you stated. The BIBLE also states that we originated from a common ancestor, Adam and Eve, and it said so a long time before genetics and Darwin. The BIBLE also outlines all of the ancestor generations after that. So how is what I am saying a lie? It's fine if you think the BIBLE is a lie, but I am just pointing out what the BIBLE says vs what you said in the previous post.
So - the bible says Adam was a monkey then?
Are monkeys incest too?, I know they don't do their young.
