|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 8:42 pm
These debates are amusing.
I believe personally in evolution except in Macro-evolution. Since we are created in the image and likeness of God, whether it be only the Soul or body, et al. its still expressing that God breathed into our lungs the Spirit of Life. Therefore humans may have been around since the beginning. But I do not discredit adaptation but not direct Genus or Species.
I cannot discredit the works of Evolutionists, but I may not agree with every fossil placed before me claiming ancestral linkage in regards to some ancient ancestor shaped like a fish and flew like a chicken. I cannot discredit how we as a species adapt to virtually every environment we have lived, as well as other species who have adapted in the same manner. In fact history itself through micro-evolutionary means could show a long period of time with tons of adaptations to environmental causes throughout all of history since the garden or Flood.
These are my own thoughts. Criticize as one will on the internet.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2009 11:57 pm
I don't believe in a lot of things science has delved up, they teach science as being fact. Then a few years later the theory is disproved. I belive in creationism, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory as it's stated in school text books. I believe in evolution to a point but nothing so dramatic as primates to humans. I've been open to persuasion and my father tried to show me fossils said to be from during the metamorphises or whatever you prefer to call it. But sadly most of the ones that really seemed like proof had either been frauds or were disproved within a year or two. I'm open to debate, but when it comes to some people, well actually almost the majority of the people I'm with on a regular basis they don't care. They find a beleif just for the act of believing in it and then would rather remain blind to the rest of societies opinions unless they matched their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:22 am
Resa Keilor I don't believe in a lot of things science has delved up, they teach science as being fact. Then a few years later the theory is disproved. I belive in creationism, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory as it's stated in school text books. I believe in evolution to a point but nothing so dramatic as primates to humans. I've been open to persuasion and my father tried to show me fossils said to be from during the metamorphises or whatever you prefer to call it. But sadly most of the ones that really seemed like proof had either been frauds or were disproved within a year or two. I'm open to debate, but when it comes to some people, well actually almost the majority of the people I'm with on a regular basis they don't care. They find a beleif just for the act of believing in it and then would rather remain blind to the rest of societies opinions unless they matched their own. They teach it as fact because it is empirical. Quote: Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal Listen to the pronunciation of empirical Pronunciation: -i-kəl Variant(s): also em·pir·ic Listen to the pronunciation of empiric -ik Function: adjective Date: 1569 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
4 : of or relating to empiricism Without evolution theory, we would not have the advances that we have in modern medicine today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:53 pm
We were created in the likeness of God, yes.
-But- who says God isn't or wasn't at one time an amoeba?
We tend to personify everything, like we are and will always be the only things on this planet with a soul, that we are and will always be the top. But what if at one time we weren't? Like humans are now on top of the food chain, what is tiny one celled creatures were at the top?
Who said that God doesn't evolve too? We don't know that.. He's an all knowing, all around ever existing being, yes. But who slapped on the "fact" that he doesn't change. He the father, the son, and the holy spirit, why can't he be a frog, or a duck if he wants too? He appears to people all the time in apparitions and things.
Point for creationism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:35 pm
omnijafar We were created in the likeness of God, yes. -But- who says God isn't or wasn't at one time an amoeba? We tend to personify everything, like we are and will always be the only things on this planet with a soul, that we are and will always be the top. But what if at one time we weren't? Like humans are now on top of the food chain, what is tiny one celled creatures were at the top? Who said that God doesn't evolve too? We don't know that.. He's an all knowing, all around ever existing being, yes. But who slapped on the "fact" that he doesn't change. He the father, the son, and the holy spirit, why can't he be a frog, or a duck if he wants too? He appears to people all the time in apparitions and things. Point for creationism. What? To summarise your points, correct me if I'm wrong: We're made in God's image Couldn't God have been a lower life form at some point? God changes yes? How do any of those ideas, regardless of whether they're valid or not, make a point for creationism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:58 pm
Well if you think about it, creationism is just a combination of what people like from Christianity and what people like from evolution, put together to try to make some sense. I'm just taking it back a few thousand years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:17 am
omnijafar Well if you think about it, creationism is just a combination of what people like from Christianity and what people like from evolution, put together to try to make some sense. I'm just taking it back a few thousand years. Well the only problem with how that does not support creationism is that Biblically, God does not change and he made man and woman in his image. So the idea of God being an amoeba would not support creationism. As for us being made in God's image, I personally interpret that as meaning that spiritually we are in God's image in that our actions toward others have an impact whether we are aware of it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:48 pm
That is a good point, as to the definition of the "likeness of God" as being spirit, as soul or even to have a soul is the image and likeness of God. Limited to our faculties we often probe the physical as being the only conscious existence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:15 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:23 pm
Gho the Girl omnijafar We were created in the likeness of God, yes. -But- who says God isn't or wasn't at one time an amoeba? We tend to personify everything, like we are and will always be the only things on this planet with a soul, that we are and will always be the top. But what if at one time we weren't? Like humans are now on top of the food chain, what is tiny one celled creatures were at the top? Who said that God doesn't evolve too? We don't know that.. He's an all knowing, all around ever existing being, yes. But who slapped on the "fact" that he doesn't change. He the father, the son, and the holy spirit, why can't he be a frog, or a duck if he wants too? He appears to people all the time in apparitions and things. Point for creationism. What? To summarise your points, correct me if I'm wrong: We're made in God's image Couldn't God have been a lower life form at some point? God changes yes? How do any of those ideas, regardless of whether they're valid or not, make a point for creationism? And the lord other forms if he chooses but but it isn't his true form. It says Christ's image was just a shell he used on earth. It says we will be dead before we see his face. That's why he only let Moses see his hand when giving him the ten commandments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:37 am
omnijafar We were created in the likeness of God, yes. -But- who says God isn't or wasn't at one time an amoeba? We tend to personify everything, like we are and will always be the only things on this planet with a soul, that we are and will always be the top. But what if at one time we weren't? Like humans are now on top of the food chain, what is tiny one celled creatures were at the top? Who said that God doesn't evolve too? We don't know that.. He's an all knowing, all around ever existing being, yes. But who slapped on the "fact" that he doesn't change. He the father, the son, and the holy spirit, why can't he be a frog, or a duck if he wants too? He appears to people all the time in apparitions and things. Point for creationism. God can't change because he isn't bounded by time, the necessary element for everything and anything to change. And that doesn't really do anything for creationism. All of that is really just a speculation, nothing to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:44 am
rmcdra That's because ID has no scientific backing, it's philosophy at best. To me, evolution isn't much better. An excerpt from the book "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" (by Duane T. Gish) explains why I feel this way. A theory, to qualify as a scientific theory, must make definite predictions, the failure of which would falsify the theory. A theory that is stated in such broad or vague terms that there is no way to show that it is wrong (if it is wrong) is a very poor theory (or at least not a very scientific one). Francisco Ayala, a biologist and ardent anti-creationist states that: "Natural selection can account for the different patterns, rates, and outcomes of evolutionary processes. Adaptive radiations in some cases, as well as lack of phyletic diversifications in others, rapid and slow rates in evolutionary change, profuse and limited genetic variation in populations; these and many other alternative occurrences can all be explained by postulating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges." In other words, it makes no difference what the data turns out to be, one can imagine an evolutionary scenario to account for the data. Thus, the theory of natural selection can be used to explain anything and everything. The "explanatory" power of natural selection in evolutionary theory to account for what we see in the fossil record and among living creatures today is limited only by the powers of human imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:08 pm
Im not a part of this guild, but Ill post something. Im sorry to say this, but those proofs and theorys, like The Theory of Evolution by. Charles Darwin doesn't cut to anything. The theorys and the broad thinking, that we come from monkey's doesn't cut to anything, cause it's a theory that only humans come to believe in. People that believe in evolution, they don't want to know. They're so afraid to know, that they want to be right. The Bible says that God didnt create them to be ignorant, but to be fruitful, and spread the world and follow his laws. The real fact's that, God himself's a spirit, and we are his creations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:21 am
Adamantyx rmcdra That's because ID has no scientific backing, it's philosophy at best. To me, evolution isn't much better. An excerpt from the book "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics" (by Duane T. Gish) explains why I feel this way. A theory, to qualify as a scientific theory, must make definite predictions, the failure of which would falsify the theory. A theory that is stated in such broad or vague terms that there is no way to show that it is wrong (if it is wrong) is a very poor theory (or at least not a very scientific one). Francisco Ayala, a biologist and ardent anti-creationist states that: "Natural selection can account for the different patterns, rates, and outcomes of evolutionary processes. Adaptive radiations in some cases, as well as lack of phyletic diversifications in others, rapid and slow rates in evolutionary change, profuse and limited genetic variation in populations; these and many other alternative occurrences can all be explained by postulating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges." In other words, it makes no difference what the data turns out to be, one can imagine an evolutionary scenario to account for the data. Thus, the theory of natural selection can be used to explain anything and everything. The "explanatory" power of natural selection in evolutionary theory to account for what we see in the fossil record and among living creatures today is limited only by the powers of human imagination. Okay but Natural selection describes the process. It does not attempt to explain why diversifications occur. A process can be tested. Since Natural Selection can be tested, it can be scrutinized. ID cannot be tested because it does not attempt to describe any process but only explain why a process occurs. Since ID is rhetoric and philosophy at best, it falls outside of the realm of science since it is non-falsifiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:26 am
Gennten Im not a part of this guild, but Ill post something. Im sorry to say this, but those proofs and theorys, like The Theory of Evolution by. Charles Darwin doesn't cut to anything. The theorys and the broad thinking, that we come from monkey's doesn't cut to anything, cause it's a theory that only humans come to believe in. People that believe in evolution, they don't want to know. They're so afraid to know, that they want to be right. The Bible says that God didnt create them to be ignorant, but to be fruitful, and spread the world and follow his laws. The real fact's that, God himself's a spirit, and we are his creations. Theory has a different meaning in science terminology than it does in common speech. In Scientific terminology, a Theory is pretty close to being right. It has been tested and scrutinized quite rigorously and it'd be a safe bet to declare as fact unless new evidence comes along that shows it to be false. Also evolution does not claim we came from "monkeys." That is a misrepresentation of the explaining the empirical origin of Homo Sapiens. Also calling God a spirit is quite limiting and disrespectful to the one that we follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
