|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:26 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:09 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:31 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 12:21 pm
 |
|
|
|
Lokhen Prof. Moonie I believe in both creation and evolution. I believe we were created by a greater deity ((I myself belief in God)). I also believe that evolution is possible. That animals and plants change over time to survive in the changing environments. Probably the only thing about evolution I don't believe in is the fact that humans evolved from monkeys (specifically ancestral chimps). True we may have similar genes and what not, but I don't think that it's enough evidence to make such a bold statement. That's all I'm going to say on this topic. Yes, I second the motion. Monkeys might have a similar genes like ours but to think of it as a basis, I think it is insulting since we are not animals but beings. Plants do have similarities with their genes so I guess this also applies to animal where at some point there is a similarity in genetic configuration. But that is not an enough evidence.
But we didn't evolve from monkey or chimps or any currently existing line of apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:48 pm
|
|
|
 |
Deppfan Teague Lokhen Prof. Moonie I believe in both creation and evolution. I believe we were created by a greater deity ((I myself belief in God)). I also believe that evolution is possible. That animals and plants change over time to survive in the changing environments. Probably the only thing about evolution I don't believe in is the fact that humans evolved from monkeys (specifically ancestral chimps). True we may have similar genes and what not, but I don't think that it's enough evidence to make such a bold statement. That's all I'm going to say on this topic. Yes, I second the motion. Monkeys might have a similar genes like ours but to think of it as a basis, I think it is insulting since we are not animals but beings. Plants do have similarities with their genes so I guess this also applies to animal where at some point there is a similarity in genetic configuration but not really the exact. And so that is not an enough evidence. But we didn't evolve from monkey or chimps or any currently existing line of apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
Yes, I'm on the same side as you but Charles Darwin made us think that we came in the same species with monkeys. Ape-like? So its not really an ape, just ape-like and how about adam and eve? God said that "...beings like us" we were created in an image of God. So would you agree that God is somewhat like an ape!? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:04 pm
|
|
|
|
FREAKAman01 one thing I always wonder about though is the dinosaurs. The Bible says in six days everything was created, all animals and all things were to produce after it's kind, so I think the dinosaurs were included in that but.... how they died off I'm not sure. something like the Flood would probably cause huge differences in the atmosphere and stuff like that so my theories are either the earth was changed so drasticly that it couldn't support the life of such a large reptile, or that humans killed them off by hunting. which I suppose might account for the legends of dragons and dragon slayers and things like that. one other thing is that people have found huge dragonflies and huge versions of our animals as fossils. so another theory is that since alot of current day reptiles don't stop growing until they die, dinosaurs were just big lizards.
you should do a little more research and maybe most of your questions will be answered. or watch discovery channel more often. this looks a lot more meaner or more rude than i met it to be. just an honest advice. school doesnt teach you everything, most things you have to do your own research if you really want to learn anything in detail. im sick so i am not really up for explaining everything since my memory and brain is not working. [after this point, its no longer directed at u]
but i really think that religion will claim anything to be false if there is risk that their god would look less powerful. i mean the church try to say that everything circles the earth when everything was really circling the sun. dont forget they said the earth was flat too.
idk about you or anyone else, but some religions are not very good with what's really true or not and should let the scientist do their thing. one day there will be the ultimate proof of evolution that even the churches cant twist and turn. but besides the point--i mean really?? all they have to say is that god put the basics (dna, atoms, space, law of physics..etc) and let things do their thing, like evolve and change. no way does evolution denies god's existence or even the big bang doesnt denies god existence. big bang--god pressed everything together and then it exploded, or pressed a proton and electron together and caused the big bang. i mean this dude is a god so he would be strong enough to do that.
but no they have to denies every new thing scientist finds out. though i must admit the catholic church has gotten smart and forbids knowledge and one can only have faith. dont tell me that its not true i've talked to three different fathers and told me the same thing. and they have been taking all books out of the bible that contains facts or knowledge and little or no faith. i believe they are still doing that.
but since my brain is crap i am prepared of misunderstandings of what i am trying to say, so bare with me and if you respond incorrectly i will try my best to reword what i am trying to say.
i do not hate religion, catholics or anything. just putting that out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:26 pm
|
|
|
|
I believe in both. In Creation, there was nothing that existed in this universe. No atoms, no molecular mass, nothing. So how can something come from nothing? Scientists have already developed a well-established theory of the big bang by tracing the speed and direction of various stars and systems, and they all converge, when put into reverse, into one spot. The Divine created that initial matter by speaking a single word (or is such in my religious belief), and that word was Ma'at, meaning Order. Sound condensed into a particle, an atom, and with it just the right amount of gravity to cause the Big Bang. As for evolution, I believe that humans were created in groups, not two single people. My reason for this belief is the medical problems and lack of diversity that comes from inbreeding. Humankind would not have been able to survive for long with such a shallow gene pool. Evolution also plays a role in that to adapt to different climates, the human body had to also adapt, causing different pigmentation of skin, genes that cause some people to be rather hairy for resistance to cold climates, and a multitude of other things. But as for relations to monkeys and such, while there are many genetic similarities, there is no conclusive evidence of a common ancestor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:31 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 10:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Deppfan Teague Lokhen Prof. Moonie I believe in both creation and evolution. I believe we were created by a greater deity ((I myself belief in God)). I also believe that evolution is possible. That animals and plants change over time to survive in the changing environments. Probably the only thing about evolution I don't believe in is the fact that humans evolved from monkeys (specifically ancestral chimps). True we may have similar genes and what not, but I don't think that it's enough evidence to make such a bold statement. That's all I'm going to say on this topic. Yes, I second the motion. Monkeys might have a similar genes like ours but to think of it as a basis, I think it is insulting since we are not animals but beings. Plants do have similarities with their genes so I guess this also applies to animal where at some point there is a similarity in genetic configuration. But that is not an enough evidence. But we didn't evolve from monkey or chimps or any currently existing line of apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common ape-like ancestor.
thank you
i for one am in favor of evolution, but i think it should be evolution vs "intelligent design", seeing as they more similar. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:16 pm
|
|
|
|
Ink_Weaver_Heart I assume you got all of the information that you posted in the first post from the internet? That's why most of it is bogus. And I'll say why:
((First: my opinion is that both happened))
1: There are no hundreds of documents backing the Bible. Truly, there aren't. The Bible was WRITTEN by man, and therefor not the direct word of God. It has probably been altered in major ways by the old people of the Earth.
2: Those stories are based off of the individual first story. It's been proven that there was not a huge flood covering the whole world. There would be evidence of it. Science proves that (and if you have an issue with science, read this: If you want to prove something to someone, you show them an example, right? That's how scientists prove things, by scale or equal experiments) there was no huge world-wide flood. However, the area near the Red Sea did flood hugely in history.
3: Carbon Dating is working on half-lives. So anything that hasn't been destroyed by a few thousand years worth of Environmental degration, would have such small half-lives, that the process couldn't be accurate.
4: What does coal and oil have to do with the Bible, or evolution at all? And further more, do you know the exact preferences that the coal and oil was created (artificially, since man created it)? I think not.
5: It was not made by a plate shift, or a huge amount of water all of the sudden-like. It was made over a long time. A small stream in the ground ended up disintegrating through the sands, and creating the canyon. (Think of letting a hose flow water in the sand or dirt)
6: Have you any proof that they are hoaxes? And why is the relevance of its truthfulness or not relate to the arguments between religion and evolution? People are the ones that make this "evidential" web sites, and are probably not factual at all.
7: For me to discredit this paragraph, I shall show the comparisons between Evolution and Religion.
We evolved from small molecular organisms. God created man from the dust.
The big bang created the Universe. Does the Bible say how he created things? Couldn't it have been a Big Bang that God created and in turn, the universe? And hint: everything is made of molecules, so you can't use it as a complex base, because it's widespread and therefor normal.
Stars and such are made of heat, you can admit to that yes? So how would all of the stars and everything come into existence if it were not in a wondrous explosion?
---
As to this "six day" concept, I shall reiterate words spoken at the Scopes Trial, or near it. Who are we to determine how many hours were in a day for God?
That said, how would men know how God created Everything since he wasn't created until the Fifth day? Must it have been a twenty four hour day? Go ahead, when you die, I'll let you confront God about his concepts of Days, and argue with him. Let's see who wins that one, shall we?
X]
---
I don't see why people insist on separating the two, Religion and Science. People just like the mystery in Religion, and don't want to add proof through science. And Science-ers don't want to take that leap into trusting in something that isn't proven before they can test and the prove it themselves. It isn't real until it's proven.
There's problems with your argument so lets see if i can address them
1. This and This. The New Testament is 99.5 percent accurate compared to the Illiad which is only 95.
2. I agree with this one. This is just a translation error.
3. Agreed moving on.
4. Agreed. We can artificially make diamonds and skip the thousands of years i takes to make one this no way supports young-earth creationism.
5. I already estalbished a local flood
6. Agreed.
7.
A.In Genesis 1:26 the original Hebrew Translation used the word: Asah which means to make out of pre-existing material then in 2:7 the word
Yatsar is used which means "to form" out of pre-existing material. So who's to say maybe God used the framework of Chimps and built on it why? Because it works.
B. Your establishing a straw hat on what creationists deny and trying to knock it down. The Big Bang does hold up a creator because it's stated in the scriptures that the universe was not eternal. Hell this was a slap in the face to Atheists and don't get me started on the ridiculous fine tuning, complexity, and probabilities of the Universe. You can try to explain what led up to the Big Bang but your eventually going to keep running into the "God Problem" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:19 pm
|
|
|
|
Lokhen Evolution is part of creation. Truly, the bible and science contradict when it comes to the early forms of life. The question is in between the two of them, which one do you really believe? Is it One who creates the world or the one who's been created? The existence of dinosaurs also puzzles me, I've tried to connect them with the biblical creation of the universe and the scientific theories which has been a center of debates, its very hard since I do not possess the exact technology or tools. But what puzzles me is this "Did the dinosaurs drown at the great flood and not with the reign of fire?" The earth was cleanse with water and not with fire. What if the dinosaurs exist during the time of adam and eve? though they live in a separate continent or land, where it is lavishly abundant with the necessary food. I can't deny the existence of dinosaurs since there are remains. I can't deny also the existence of the bible since it has been very detailed regarding human race.
I'm going to answer No. We proved that dinosaurs and humans didn't live together. There was no global flood. Plus there is no Hebrew word for "Dinosaur" back then. So chances are it wasn't important. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
