Evolution vs. Creation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Yes. That's if you count teenagers as adults....:brow:

---

Sure. Who am I to argue with our court system, that consistantly tries them as adults? :brow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm glad you enjoy Hawking. Have you read his The Universe in a Nutshell? Wonderful book, with very interesting concepts.

What boggles me is, if you have read Hawking, surely you must have come across the Uncertainty Principle...*somewhere*? Or have you perhaps read a more specialised work that didn't go into detail about this? Or were you merely joking when you said that there is no room for chance in this universe...

No time. Must run.

Loki

---

It was a condensed version of The Universe in a Nutshell that I read first, then an article he wrote for Science Digest. What I meant was that chance is not the answer to evolution. If I remember correctly, there are two more schools of thought on evolution other than mere chance. As I said, although I still see no reason to have to defend the statement, I believe God created the earth and everything in it. Then due to the cataclyclisms and things (such as the breaking up of the supercontinent), man and the animals have been forced to adapt to different environments, and so have evolved into what they are today. I was interested to read only yesterday that science now believes that neantherthals and homo sapiens existed at the same time but homo sapiens erradicated them. Can't they ever make up their minds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

We're all adults here, correct?

---

Actually.. this site has members of all ages, over 13 years of age and younger ;) a big reason why we try to keep things as civil as possible regarding swearing and flaming/trolling etc.

I said Evolution. Because I prefer evolution rather than saying "God created Adam and Eve"

Best Regards...

<Can't they ever make up their minds?>

Fortunately for us, most of the scientific community are always revising their work, open to new interpretations, etc. Unlike the religious communities whose minds were made up for them 2000/1500/2500/4000+ yrs ago.

yeh i agree with her the thing is no they dont ever make up their minds because theyre always changing unlike your views no matter what peole say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

Fortunately for us, most of the scientific community are always revising their work, open to new interpretations, etc. Unlike the religious communities whose minds were made up for them 2000/1500/2500/4000+ yrs ago.

---

You're assuming again, that every religious person has no mind of their own. If this were true, I would not believe in evolution in any form, but I do, just not mere chance. Cheers! :)

Well technically Darwin never stated that he disagreed with a creationist theory, all he said that life was breathed into this matter (paraphrased). So implying a God does exist. AND Genisis does state that God breathed life into man (the breath of life/God into adam. (again paraphrased).
And theoretically Genisis does mirrior the evolutionary stages in the evolution theory. So one is not concrete disproof of the other, however they do coincide. Perhaps Genisis is a metaphor fro creation, putting the concept into simpler terms so that early people could have some grasp of their origins, not to mention the Bible has been translated multiple times, aswell as revised multiple times. So it is possible that our present bible is slightly muddled.

That is why one should prey for disernment before reading the Bible, also another factor is personal interpretation. after all "everything is truee, from a certain point of view"

btw. nice darwin pic! :thumbs_up :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adelheid

God isn't a monkey. neither is he like any other creatures his created. Man made him to be so. The Bible says He is a Spirit, the Great I AM.

Read this passage, you'll know what I mean:


God is a spirit:


And I don't think I've ever seen anyone look like this before: (see 1st attachment)

And I can imagine that Darwin would change his theory once he saw this: :lol: (see 2nd attachment)

---

There used to be a famous scientific system for the identification of criminals called "The Bertillon System." Bertillion based his system on sound fact--probability mathematics. He postulated that if you took one measurement of a man, his exact height, the possibility of duplication was 1 in 4. But add in another measurement, the circumference of the head, and the odds increase to 16 to 1. His system used 14 measurements, and had odds of 286,435,456 to 1 odds of a duplication. Yet it failed in 1903 when a convict named Will West was being processed for entry into Leavenworth. According to his measurements, he was already behind bars in the prison. When the officals checked, their Will West was in his cell. The two might have been twins. Indeed, it turned out that they were. But their fingerprints were different. This really doesn't bear much on our discussion, but it does demonstrate (hopefully) the point I was trying to make about how the more factors that must come true to make chance come out right, the greater the odds of it ever occuring. But it can, I will concede that. It can, indeed.

I don't think it's right to say that Religion and Science are opposed, in fact I believe that they complement each other. I can't remember who said this, but he was a scientist and a Christian, and he said that 'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.

Centuries ago, I recall reading somewhere, the effects of theology on the comings of science. How the belief in possesion weighed heavily on the minds of the community when anything out of the ordinary happened. Epilepsy, I think, was caused by demonic possesion for your sins. Hammubari's codes were designed so that a woman may be divorced if she was "possesed" because she had sinned. See the process of blaming the victim here?

The contrast here was the scientific community who considered these afflictions of the body. Tell me again that religion and science complement each other. No more than we need a good story.

<'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.>

That's merely a belief. There is nothing scientific about that statement. If a world could create itself, who needs God?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<'we once believed that God was so great that he created the world, now we believe he is even greater than that; he created a world that could create itself'.>

That's merely a belief. There is nothing scientific about that statement. If a world could create itself, who needs God?

---

Ah... the real wonder though is that God CREATED the world (meaning making something out of nothing- where one could make something out of something but not anything out of nothing) in such a way that it could take care of itself. (reproduction, decomposition, sanitation, etc.) See how even He created instinct in animals, which men marvel at, but refuse to acknowledge the Maker or it all! The Irony!

If I admired an invention of a scientist, could I then say, " Oh! I've never heard of such a scientist before, therefore He couldn't have made this splendid invention" Neither could I claim, "This scientist couldn't have done it" or say, "If you say that the scientist did really make it, then prove it to me. Let me see him at work with it myself." I could also choose to find fault with the machine and say "oh look! there is a fault of operation here... it's all wrong. the manual's wrong. this scientist is a liar!"

How could I presume to say that I, ME and MYSELF should get the honour of watching the scientist at work? How could I claim that since I've never come across of such a scientist before, that one doesn't exist? It is MY fault that I didn't know him before and not the scientist's! Yet all in all, the invention is still there for itself to prove in reality that it was made by the unknown scientist, (whether I choose to believe it or not) and that the scientist really does exist!

You see, it is the same with mankind today and God, He is the Scientist who created the universe out of nothing. He was the scientist's whose invention has lasted thousands of years old, millions of days old. He was the One who caused His work to reproduce after it's own kind and dispose after itself. He is the I AM who made the beauty of the looming majestic mountains that we so admire, and the fragile breath of the lily. It was Himself, indeed who gave us ungrateful wretches life and breath.

Yet after all this, mankind starts to say, "where is such a God, the scientist?" I have never heard of Him, myself! I have never seen Him. He doesn't exist!" They start to say "I've found a fault in the manual- God's Word. He's a liar!" Man has started to doubt the Creator and His Word, even while the creation is still before them! They've put holes in the testimony of the creation where none was before, and spread lies to everyone around... lies that in this world could have been sued after.....

The creation of the Maker is BEFORE your very eyes, oh blinded people! Tear off the prejudice, cast the lies away and see and hear for yourself the fresh Truth! God is the only God, The Great I AM who made the world Himself. He is the scientist who you so scornfully reject and despise. Look on the world and see for yourself!!

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...6275fba148c5ba


http://news.yahoo.com/comics/frankan...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Quote:

---

You see, it is the same with mankind today and God, He is the Scientist who created the universe out of nothing.

---

But weren't the Ancient Egyptian gods (Atum/Ra in particular), the Norse gods (Odin and his brothers), the Greek gods (especially Prometheus and Epimetheus) P'an-ku (whose fleas became mankind after he died for the world), Kamui, Izanami and Izanagi (the latter couple created the Japanese islands, the first was the divine creator), the Aboriginal ancestors who woke and created themselves out of nothing (especially Ungambikula) and then carved people from the earth, and every other creation god, also scientists? Wasn't even the cow who "un-iced" (licked the primeval ice until he came out) Odin and the first Norse gods also, in a sense, scientists?

Quote:

---

He was the scientist's whose invention has lasted thousands of years old, millions of days old.

---

Um, just curious, but do you mean to say that you think this (sorry if a teeny bit large) is "incorrect"?

http://www.paleoweb.net/pal-ges/bild...ion-poster.jpg


As I said just curious. And what do you make of million-year-old fossils? Hmm, what about the Stone Age people? From what I remember, humans have only been on earth for three minutes in a 24-hr day (appearing three minutes before midnight)...

Interesting subject,

Loki