Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.

meh anotha theory iz gunna cum along eventually dat disagrees wit everything else, so i basically stik wit God since its same Shit always and is something u can definately find out for yourslef if real or not in the end

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle. Hardy-Weinberg Principle.*

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...oofs.shtml?main

How can disorder (Big Bang explosion) produce order?

http://www.open.org/mrdsnts/d01000.htm

Why aren't there any transitional forms of fossils showing evolutionary stages?

http://www.x-evolutionist.com/Fossils.html

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
meh anotha theory iz gunna cum along eventually dat disagrees wit everything else, so i basically stik wit God since its same Shit always and is something u can definately find out for yourslef if real or not in the end

That is a very great start.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.

I believe God created the Heavens (universe) and the earth exactly the way the Bible describes. It just makes more sense. It is not plausible or believable that all life forms got here by accident starting with a cosmic explosion.

I see too much design when I look around at nature. The earth is just the precise distant from the sun (if we were any closer we would burn up; if we were any further away we would freeze).

The sun hangs on nothing: nothing under it and it is not suspended from anything. The planets revolve around the sun. The earth is tilted just the precise degree on an invisible axis.

Actually the word "cosmos" comes from the Greek kosmos and means, "an orderly harmonious systematic universe." That is exactly what this universe is.

I don't want to go on enumerating all of the wonderful reasons why I believe God created all things. I would be here till Christmas.

Check out the links.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...oofs.shtml?main

How can disorder (Big Bang explosion) produce order?

http://www.open.org/mrdsnts/d01000.htm

Why aren't there any transitional forms of fossils showing evolutionary stages?

http://www.x-evolutionist.com/Fossils.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...oofs.shtml?main

How can disorder (Big Bang explosion) produce order?

http://www.open.org/mrdsnts/d01000.htm

Why aren't there any transitional forms of fossils showing evolutionary stages?

http://www.x-evolutionist.com/Fossils.html First link doesn't work. Big Bang doesn't really have to do with the topic, and the thing about the fossils is what we call "Missing links" This does not disprove evolution in any way. It just supports the concept of punctuated equilibruim.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
believe God created the Heavens (universe) and the earth exactly the way the Bible describes. It just makes more sense. It is not plausible or believable that all life forms got here by accident starting with a cosmic explosion.

I see too much design when I look around at nature. The earth is just the precise distant from the sun (if we were any closer we would burn up; if we were any further away we would freeze).

The sun hangs on nothing: nothing under it and it is not suspended from anything. The planets revolve around the sun. The earth is tilted just the precise degree on an invisible axis.

I don't want to go on enumerating all of the wonderful reasons why I believe God created all things. I would be here till Christmas.

Check out the links.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/ap...oofs.shtml?main

How can disorder (Big Bang explosion) produce order?

http://www.open.org/mrdsnts/d01000.htm

Why aren't there any transitional forms of fossils showing evolutionary stages?

http://www.x-evolutionist.com/Fossils.html


*cough*

This is an argument of ignorance, specifically known as the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
The gap is filled with acts of God
Therefore God exists

(How many times have i spammed this quote . . . .)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/newproofs.shtml?main

Let's see if this link works.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/newproofs.shtml?main

Let's see if this link works. Didn't.

Edit: Oh wait upon clicking it again, now it does.

Try the new one.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I believe God created the Heavens (universe) and the earth exactly the way the Bible describes. It just makes more sense. It is not plausible or believable that all life forms got here by accident starting with a cosmic explosion.



hysterical

ye evolution basically is dat we r animals and dats wat we was and all we will eve will be there is no point in existence we are nothing special, And then theres God we are something special and all that. There has to a soul within because first of all science states that "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed it can only be changed". Matter comes from energy. our body is made of matter, how does our body work from the very deepest part? The mind which is our emotions, thought and sum would say spirit or soul. Since our bodies produce electromagnetic fields that keep us alive it has 2 come from some energy source inside us. When we die This energy SHOULD go Somewhere since Energy CANNOT be destroyed but only changed... And dats wat we call a soul

Yes, it's called Adenosine Triphosphate. (ATP)

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Yes, it's called Adenosine Triphosphate. (ATP)

Did you learn anything Flamboyant?

My belief is that there is some kind of 'higher power', although I don't strictly follow any organised religion as I believe their messages have been too manipulated by men for political ends over the past few thousand years.

However; the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for the creation story in the bible has several major flaws; the most prominent being that you could quite easily translate the original Hebrew to English or Latin with several different versions, so how can you be sure the bible you read has the actual true intended meaning? For example, the Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'.

The world ISN'T just several thousand years old; it is millions of years old. There is overwhelming evidence for this. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as - excuse the pun - Gospel has little grasp on reality and lives in a dream world. I don't mean that as a personal slur on any individual here and I speak in generic terms.

However, that is NOT to deny the existence of a higher power, call it God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc... I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness.

well actually he kinda agreed with me but he stated it in a scientific term but what i used was a spiritual explanation but these days things seem 2 be more advanced and people would rather have it explained da otha way but its the exact same thing :-/

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Did you learn anything Flamboyant? Eh. Not really. Just because the universe started somewhere does not mean that it was started by an omnipresent, omnipotent being. It's definitaly possible but in my opinion not probable. I am Catholic, but I can say that faith only goes so far. It was a very interesting article though.

Originally posted by Mithlond
My belief is that there is some kind of 'higher power', although I don't strictly follow any organised religion as I believe their messages have been too manipulated by men for political ends over the past few thousand years.

However; the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for the creation story in the bible has several major flaws; the most prominent being that you could quite easily translate the original Hebrew to English or Latin with several different versions, so how can you be sure the bible you read has the actual true intended meaning? For example, the Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'.

The world ISN'T just several thousand years old; it is millions of years old. There is overwhelming evidence for this. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as - excuse the pun - Gospel has little grasp on reality and lives in a dream world. I don't mean that as a personal slur on any individual here and I speak in generic terms.

However, that is NOT to deny the existence of a higher power, call it God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc... I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness. Agreed.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Eh. Not really. Just because the universe started somewhere does not mean that it was started by an omnipresent, omnipotent being. It's definitaly possible but in my opinion not probable. I am Catholic, but I can say that faith only goes so far.

Well Nothing Cant create something, someone had to start it, there is also that theory of "Intelligent Design" but you dont hear of it much because these days people dont want to hear about a God for some reason they would rather think we are pointless, im not saying that for the people who believe in Evolution but just to the people Who dont believe in anything period

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
Well Nothing Cant create something, someone had to start it, Or something. Chemical reaction?

Originally posted by Mithlond
My belief is that there is some kind of 'higher power', although I don't strictly follow any organised religion as I believe their messages have been too manipulated by men for political ends over the past few thousand years.

However; the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for the creation story in the bible has several major flaws; the most prominent being that you could quite easily translate the original Hebrew to English or Latin with several different versions, so how can you be sure the bible you read has the actual true intended meaning? For example, the Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'.

The world ISN'T just several thousand years old; it is millions of years old. There is overwhelming evidence for this. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as - excuse the pun - Gospel has little grasp on reality and lives in a dream world. I don't mean that as a personal slur on any individual here and I speak in generic terms.

However, that is NOT to deny the existence of a higher power, call it God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc... I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness.

You don't have to follow organized religion. You are supposed to be following Jesus, and no, Jesus did not come to bring religion. Jesus came that we might have life (eternal) and have it more abundantly.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Or something. Chemical reaction?

Flamboyant check this out and tell me what you think.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You don't have to follow organized religion. You are supposed to be following Jesus, and no, Jesus did not come to bring religion. Jesus came that we might have life (eternal) and have it more abundantly.

True i follow him to but i'd rather not be an extremist about it because that is what is destroying our country and is possibly leading us into a world war 3

Originally posted by Mithlond
My belief is that there is some kind of 'higher power', although I don't strictly follow any organised religion as I believe their messages have been too manipulated by men for political ends over the past few thousand years.

However; the evidence for Evolution is overwhelming; the evidence for the creation story in the bible has several major flaws; the most CAN fit in with the Quran.prominent being that you could quite easily translate the original Hebrew to English or Latin with several different versions, so how can you be sure the bible you read has the actual true intended meaning? For example, the Hebrew word for 'days' is the same as the Hebrew word for 'ages'.

The world ISN'T just several thousand years old; it is millions of years old. There is overwhelming evidence for this. I'm sorry, but anyone who takes the creation story of Genesis as - excuse the pun - Gospel has little grasp on reality and lives in a dream world. I don't mean that as a personal slur on any individual here and I speak in generic terms.

However, that is NOT to deny the existence of a higher power, call it God, Allah, Mother Earth, etc... I agree there is too much design in the world. But, to follow the Creationist line is just, in my personal opinion, utter craziness.

Definetly agree. Especially with the last part.

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
True i follow him to but i'd rather not be an extremist about it because that is what is destroying our country and is possibly leading us into a world war 3

Then don't be an extremist.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Flamboyant check this out and tell me what you think.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

Let me ask you something, do you truely beleive these tracts? Do you beleive that they are 100 percent truthful?

Originally posted by crazy
Let me ask you something, do you truely beleive these tracts? Do you beleive that they are 100 percent truthful?

I think it has a point..

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Flamboyant check this out and tell me what you think.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Still doesn't really disprove evolution.

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
I think it has a point..

See the thing is I am not an expert on evolution so I can not disprove the things that the tracts say as lies right off the bat, they probably are though judging by the propganda they spread. See I might not know much about evolution, but other topics I have some knowledge on have also been on the chick tracts and basically they have either been just been distorted, half truths, or just full out lies. I do not think Jesus liked those who lied.

Originally posted by crazy
See the thing is I am not an expert on evolution so I can not disprove the things that the tracts say as lies right off the bat, they probably are though judging by the propganda they spread. See I might not know much about evolution, but other topics I have some knowledge on have also been on the chick tracts and basically they have either been just been distorted, half truths, or just full out lies. I do not think Jesus liked those who lied.
Well yea wat were sed in that cartoon is tru whether you choose to believe it or not but. But even these days Christians also themselves are lieing just to try prove there believes and they forgot the very principles they are supposed to follow and thats what makes us look bad

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You don't have to follow organized religion. You are supposed to be following Jesus, and no, Jesus did not come to bring religion. Jesus came that we might have life (eternal) and have it more abundantly.

If you are a Christian, you should be following Jesus if you are a Muslim, you should be following Mohammed PBUH.

I believe Jesus lived, I like his messages, I try to live my life by them. But, I don't go to Church, and I certainly don't partake of Creationist theory.

Like I said before, the bible wasn't sent to us from God by fax or email - it was written by men, and is as prone to human error and influence as anything else.

But - if I had to 'put myself' into a religion, I would be an open-minded Christian with elements of Buddhism as well.

Oh great, another Evolution Vs. Creation thread.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh great, another Evolution Vs. Creation thread.
Ye Dont they Kick ass!

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
Ye Dont they Kick ass! No, because it involves me spamming up the thread, calling the creationists morons, getting warned by a mod, and then 5 other people doing exactly what I did later on, but in parts.

During which, the creationists make complete asses of themselves, the thread dies, and then another one comes along, starts a new thread, and then it all starts all over again.

Originally posted by lord xyz
No, because it involves me spamming up the thread, calling the creationists morons, getting warned by a mod, and then 5 other people doing exactly what I did later on, but in parts.

During which, the creationists make complete asses of themselves, the thread dies, and then another one comes along, starts a new thread, and then it all starts all over again.

ye i hate wen people take da creation story literally, but at least its easy to prove a point and gives sumten to do at this time

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
ye i hate wen people take da creation story literally, but at least its easy to prove a point and gives sumten to do at this time Prove what exactly? They're making themselves look like morons?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Prove what exactly? They're making themselves look like morons?

Excactly, just put them in there place and life moves on

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
Excactly, just put them in there place and life moves on I like it when they want to sound scientific by saying the world was made in 6 days.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I like it when they want to sound scientific by saying the world was made in 6 days.
lol yeah i know i right. Im a strong believer in Jesus myself, but im not one of those people to take 6,000 year old text literally, and since its that old i laugh at the fact the hardcore creationist think the world was created 6,000 years ago

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Still doesn't really disprove evolution.

Try this one.

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/CreationEvolution.pdf

Originally posted by crazy
Let me ask you something, do you truely beleive these tracts? Do you beleive that they are 100 percent truthful?

Let me just say that I am inclined to believe that they are just like you are disposed to think that they are not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Try this one.

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/fastfacts/CreationEvolution.pdf

And this one.

http://www.darwinreconsidered.org/media/MaterialistMythology.pdf

Not to mention this one.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

Lmao Damn u OD

Same old, same old WEAK arguments for Creationism.

Originally posted by Templares
Same old, same old WEAK arguments for Creationism.

Can you be more specific?

Somehow I think that if he elaborated on his point, you would still quote some book written by some person who didn't even know there was a planet beyond the seas. AND yet you insist on claiming that it is completely 100% right and everyone else are wrong.

OHHHHHHHHHH please, god......... no Jesus Christ ( since u say they are the same) gave you a brain to think for yourself, NOT to just copy and paste.

Before you go pasting some other link, think for a bit, why would god give us a set of teeth and an organ( ie appendix) that WE HAVE NO USE for???????? Unless sometime in the past we did have use for it. PLEASE go in ur precious bible and find the answer to that.
DO NOT give a quote on howJEsus is lord and we should follow him. Give a quote to tell us why we have things in our body we dont need anymore.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Can you be more specific?

Sure, sure lets punch holes (2 big ones) on that pdf link of yours from reclaimamerica.org:

1. It CHERRY PICKS quotes from reputable scientist to make it appear that the theory of evolution is losing its support in the scientific community and certain facts relevant to the debate.

-It failed to include this quote from Fred Hoyle:

"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14

-Or this one from Stephen J. Gould

"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. " - Stephen J. Gould

-Or take into account the general stance of CURRENT scientists like when The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative declared (in 2005) that Intelligent design (Creationism updated for the new millenium) cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In fact why do creationists love to quote old and/or dead scientists who lived in an INFERIOR scientific era?

-Or take into account that ID/creationist "scientists" like Michael Behe and Will Dembski and their "arguments" have already been HOSED down by the scientific community in several books, journals and public statements all over the world, in particular the court ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial just last December 2005 (Behe made a fool of himself here).

2. It OVEREXAGGERATES the flaws and/or gaps in the evolutionary theory.

-Hoaxes debunked (Piltdown man), old assumptions discarded (Haeckel embryo's) or modified (Neanderthal man) or corrected (Darwin's racist assumption about human evolution was proven wrong by geneticists); all of these things are NORMAL occurences in the course of scientific development.Science and evolution is not static. What we know today is NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural world. There would be plenty more of scientific breakthroughs in the future. Gaps in the fossil record? That would be FILLED IN in the future (Poppycock! Do these creationists know how insanely difficult it is to find fossils?) and besides these currently missing fossils do NOT INVALIDATE evolution because other branches of science like genetics, anatomy, bacteriology furnish concrete evidence that supports it.

-Have i mentioned "God of the Gaps"? Yeah baby.

I just hope my previous post is NOT TOO LONG for JIA to read. He prefers short, succint replies .

Evolution: Everything got together through development, time, and the laws of physics.

Creationism: God did it.

Originally posted by Templares
I just hope my previous post is NOT TOO LONG for JIA to read. He prefers short, succint replies .

He likley will not read it at all.

If he does...I doubt he'll understand it.

Originally posted by Alliance
He likley will not read it at all.

If he does...I doubt he'll understand it. Just like all the others.

uh...SURPRISE! baka

No. Say, has Blue Nocture been online lately?

if she has, she hasn't been here.

(Blue nocturne is known as Emperor Ashtar for a while now.)

Originally posted by Storm
(Blue nocturne is known as Emperor Ashtar for a while now.) Oh, thanks Storm.


How do you know everything on these forums? Do you have a guide to all the posts or something?

Its transcendance.

hey mods are gods in forums, hehehe

benevolent dictatorship?

What Excactly do evolutionists believe comes after death?? ((just curious))

There is no such thing as an "evolutionsit"

"They" can believe anything.

Originally posted by Alliance
There is no such thing as an "evolutionsit"

"They" can believe anything.

Meh dats how i used to hear of it when i used to be brainwashed by them damn creationists as a child

what?

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
What Excactly do evolutionists believe comes after death?? ((just curious)) Evolution is not a religion.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Sorry if this has been done, but which do you beleive in and why?

I personally beleive in the Evolution theory, because it has basically been scientifically proven. Especially by the Hard-Weinberg Principle.

I believe both.

Creation does not preclude evolution, and vice versa. Evolution has been shown to be capable of manipulation by man. Given this, a creator could have used evolution as the tool of creation. The scientific support for evolution should lead an individual that believes in creation to assume that it played some role in creation.

evolution is a mechanism...nothing more.

Originally posted by Templares
Sure, sure lets punch holes (2 big ones) on that pdf link of yours from reclaimamerica.org:

1. It CHERRY PICKS quotes from reputable scientist to make it appear that the theory of evolution is losing its support in the scientific community and certain facts relevant to the debate.

-It failed to include this quote from Fred Hoyle:

"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14

-Or this one from Stephen J. Gould

"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand. " - Stephen J. Gould

-Or take into account the general stance of CURRENT scientists like when The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative declared (in 2005) that Intelligent design (Creationism updated for the new millenium) cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." In fact why do creationists love to quote old and/or dead scientists who lived in an INFERIOR scientific era?

-Or take into account that ID/creationist "scientists" like Michael Behe and Will Dembski and their "arguments" have already been HOSED down by the scientific community in several books, journals and public statements all over the world, in particular the court ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial just last December 2005 (Behe made a fool of himself here).

2. It OVEREXAGGERATES the flaws and/or gaps in the evolutionary theory.

-Hoaxes debunked (Piltdown man), old assumptions discarded (Haeckel embryo's) or modified (Neanderthal man) or corrected (Darwin's racist assumption about human evolution was proven wrong by geneticists); all of these things are NORMAL occurences in the course of scientific development.Science and evolution is not static. What we know today is NOT THE SUM TOTAL OF EVERYTHING there is to know about the natural world. There would be plenty more of scientific breakthroughs in the future. Gaps in the fossil record? That would be FILLED IN in the future (Poppycock! Do these creationists know how insanely difficult it is to find fossils?) and besides these currently missing fossils do NOT INVALIDATE evolution because other branches of science like genetics, anatomy, bacteriology furnish concrete evidence that supports it.

-Have i mentioned "God of the Gaps"? Yeah baby.


New Definition of Science?




Issue Date: November/December 2005

By Thomas Heinze

"Evolution is science, so the schools must teach it. Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) are religion, so they must not be taught!" We have been hearing this kind of rubbish a lot more since President Bush said he thinks intelligent design should be taught in public schools in addition to evolution so the students can understand what the debate is all about.

Mark Bergin in World Magazine lists some of the criticisms: "The Philadelphia Daily News said widespread acceptance of ID could undermine the scientific method. The Washington Post suggested that the president was 'indulging quackery' for political gain. The Los Angeles Times called the comments 'one more example of the extreme right's attempt to create a Taliban-like society." (Mark Bergin, Mad scientists, World Magazine, 8/05,) Evolutionists, who say that Bush wants religion and what they want is science, use a special definition of science that eliminates creation: "Science is the search for natural solutions." Creation by an intelligent Designer is a supernatural rather than a natural solution. By this contrived definition, to be "scientific," you have to be an atheist.

Consider this: The heads of some of America's most famous presidents have been carved from solid rock at Mount Rushmore. If a visiting evolutionist science professor applied the "search for natural solutions definition to these heads, he would have to conclude that they were formed by something natural like weathering and erosion rather than by intelligent design. If he suggested this, he would be laughed out of the classroom.

But he does not hesitate to teach his students that the heads of the real presidents who inspired the statues evolved by accident through the blind forces of nature. Is he right when he claims that the real heads of real presidents had no designer? No! Stone cold, dead wrong!

The Rushmore heads only show design on the carved surface. The real heads show incredible design all the way down to the atoms. Human heads are made of billions of cells. Inside each cell, wonderful little machines do much of the work of the cell. Every machine known to mankind had an intelligent designer, but these cell machines are so precise and efficient that manmade machines are crude by comparison. Scientists are studying them, hoping to copy them. For example, a miniature motor that spins at 100,000 RPM with almost perfect efficiency is found in some single celled animals that evolutionists consider "primitive." This is just one of the many kinds of molecular motors and other molecular machines found even in "simple" cells. Moreover, the cell's machines are made of some of the most complex and difficult to produce chemicals in the world, such as protein and RNA. These materials never occur in nature except when made by living cells. Yet, evolutionists claim that lucky accidents brought the parts together and assembled them.

Why would they even consider such a dumb idea? Because their definition of science makes intelligent design "unscientific".

Hiding the evidence for intelligent design from our students is a horrible, despicable crime against them. How many students would believe in evolution today if the evidence that God was the Designer and Creator had not been hidden from them?

ID is a way to get Christianity into the schools.

I don't want Christianity to be taught in my schools.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't want Christianity to be taught in my schools.
Its not about christianity because that will just be shoving religion down there throats, its just presenting the other theory that instead of us being a meaningless accident that there was "Something" That was there before and Created us, thats it no bible attached

I stopped reading here:



This Thomas Heinze person does not know the fundamentals of the topic he is writing about. I read no more so I don't even know what side of the debate he is on.......but there is no such thing as "super-natural" in science. Everything that exists is natural. If God exists......God is natural. If flying hippos exist.......flying hippos are natural. If ghosts exist, ghosts are natural.

How the hell can someone sit down and write articles the length of what you have posted when they do not even know the very basics of the topic they are discussing?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Let me just say that I am inclined to believe that they are just like you are disposed to think that they are not.

Even when factual evidence says otherwise?

You do not have to be born again to be spiritual.

Originally posted by Regret
So you limit God in his method of creation?

I tell my son to make a sandwich and he does. I can say that by my word a sandwich was created/came into being/exists, it is an accurate statement. All you have is the statement that God said this we will create, and then it is. It does not stating unequivocally that there was not a process between the statement and the existence.

The term instantaneous is not used in the Bible, and I see no reason to believe that the Bible description of creation necessitates instantaneous creation. Your interpretation is merely that, an interpretation, and as I have stated does not have unequivocal Biblical support.

Using your logic the Bible does not state that there was a process neither. In fact there is overwhelming support that creation was instantaneous than there is that it occurred over a proctracted period of time as evolution hypothesizes.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your logic the Bible does not state that there was a process neither. In fact there is overwhelming support that creation was instantaneous than there is that it occurred over a proctracted period of time as evolution hypothesizes.

There is no "overwhelming support".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no "overwhelming support".

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your logic the Bible does not state that there was a process neither. In fact there is overwhelming support that creation was instantaneous than there is that it occurred over a proctracted period of time as evolution hypothesizes.

No, there is not Biblical support for a process either. It is a mystery that the Bible does not explain. We cannot Biblically claim we "know" how creation occurred outside what the Bible states. You are the one that jumped in and said it had to be instantaneous, did God say to you "JIA, it was instantaneous"? If he didn't then you don't need to stress over the method, the method is unimportant, what is important is God stated it would occur, and it did. I stated that it is possible that there was a method used, this is not contradictory to the Bible, it merely says "I don't know, so it is possible", and for God all things are possible.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Using your logic the Bible does not state that there was a process neither. In fact there is overwhelming support that creation was instantaneous than there is that it occurred over a proctracted period of time as evolution hypothesizes.

Yeah remember the Bible Were Written by Men who Believed in God. Believers in the bible believed them to have been inspired by God, Regret is right its a mystery how the bible doesnt awnser all but yeah there is a lot of stuff in the bible that is missing. The bible is just made up of a bunch of ancient religious texts that have survived for over 6,000 years they can be other lost books out there saying anything about whatever and we have but it contradicts wat we alredy believe and the catholics consider that there own religion is blasphemy -_-

Originally posted by Regret
No, there is not Biblical support for a process either. It is a mystery that the Bible does not explain. We cannot Biblically claim we "know" how creation occurred outside what the Bible states. You are the one that jumped in and said it had to be instantaneous, did God say to you "JIA, it was instantaneous"? If he didn't then you don't need to stress over the method, the method is unimportant, what is important is God stated it would occur, and it did. I stated that it is possible that there was a method used, this is not contradictory to the Bible, it merely says "I don't know, so it is possible", and for God all things are possible.

No, here is what you said:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Regret
"...The Bible does not speak as to the method of creation other than who did it, it is not inconceivable that evolution was a tool used by God to create. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't contradict the possibility of other methods of creation. It is merely a description of one scientifically valid method for the creation of various forms of life that we are aware of. "

I am saying that that God did not use satan's lie of evolution to create and you are saying that it is not inconceivable that evolution was a tool used by God to create. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't contradict the possibility of other methods of creation.

^ Regret is saying that you don't know.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, here is what you said:

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Regret
"...The Bible does not speak as to the method of creation other than who did it, it is not inconceivable that evolution was a tool used by God to create. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't contradict the possibility of other methods of creation. It is merely a description of one scientifically valid method for the creation of various forms of life that we are aware of. "

I am saying that that God did not use Satan's lie of evolution to create and you are saying that it is not inconceivable that evolution was a tool used by God to create. Also, evolutionary theory doesn't contradict the possibility of other methods of creation.

Show me Biblical support contradicting the possibility of evolution. There is nothing in the Bible to deny the possibility. There is nothing in the Bible that states it is "Satan's lie", that is not found in the Bible, but in the heads of those too proud to accept that their personal interpretations may not be accurate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Regret is saying that you don't know.

Yes, that is exactly what I am stating.

JIA, I apologize if the language I used was not language you could comprehend properly.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
...Through the worship of animals and idols they have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible (sinful) man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. This also includes the lie of evolution which states that humankind descended from animals (apes and other creatures). Evolutionists everywhere are in essence worshipping and serving the "creature" (apes and other animals that they allege that we descended from) rather than the Creator (God) who is blessed forever.


I do not worship.

If someone alleges that we "are animals" then you fall under this category as well.

Through the worship of animals and idols they have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible (sinful) man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. This also includes the lie of evolution which states that humankind descended from animals (apes and other creatures). Evolutionists everywhere are in essence worshipping and serving the "creature" (apes and other animals that they allege that we descended from) rather than the Creator (God) who is blessed forever.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If someone alleges that we "are animals" then you fall under this category as well.

Through the worship of animals and idols they have changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible (sinful) man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. This also includes the lie of evolution which states that humankind descended from animals (apes and other creatures). Evolutionists everywhere are in essence worshipping and serving the "creature" (apes and other animals that they allege that we descended from) rather than the Creator (God) who is blessed forever.

You and I are both animals. You can live in a fantasy if you like, but you are then blind to the truth.

Proverbs 14:7
Go from the presence of a foolish man, When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 8:5
5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

JesusIsAlive, I have a question for you. Why do you use long lists of scriptural passages to argue with people that don't share your belief that the Bible is a privileged text? It pretty much precludes the possibility of you convincing anyone other than persons who already agree with you. I'm asking you this because I'm not sure if you understand how completely off-putting this Bible tract style of argument is. The tone comes across as uncharitable and sanctimonious. If you realise this already, why are you posting? To convert people or to beat people down?

I say this as someone who treats the Bible as an inspired document.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
JesusIsAlive, I have a question for you. Why do you use long lists of scriptural passages to argue with people that don't share your belief that the Bible is a privileged text? It pretty much precludes the possibility of you convincing anyone other than persons who already agree with you. I'm asking you this because I'm not sure if you understand how completely off-putting this Bible tract style of argument is. The tone comes across as uncharitable and sanctimonious. If you realise this already, why are you posting? To convert people or to beat people down?

I say this as someone who treats the Bible as an inspired document.

I think his last post was well done, it stated what he believed and he quoted the verses that supported his belief. Some of his posts in the past were not well done imo, but the last one was very well written imo.

edit: Oops, it was a post in another thread, let me get the quote.

Here it is

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Here are my Scriptures that I believe refute that God used the hypothesis of evolution to create life. You can continue to discount them all you want. But you have yet to provide any Scriptures yourself in support that God used evolution to create life.
...
God "speaks" things into existence, this is his modus operandi, not the hypothesis of evolution.
...
I believe that this Scripture refutes the hypothesis of evolution.

I edited out the scriptural quotes, he was very well written and spoke with respect imo.

Originally posted by Regret
I think his last post was well done, it stated what he believed and he quoted the verses that supported his belief. Some of his posts in the past were not well done imo, but the last one was very well written imo.

edit: Oops, it was a post in another thread, let me get the quote.

Here it is



I edited out the scriptural quotes, he was very well written and spoke with respect imo.

I agree. That's not bad. But there have been some really bad ones.

BTW, I didn't post what I posted to be snarky, JesusIsAlive. I just think less scripture quoting and more rational argument is your best bet in actually talking to people that don't share your beliefs.

Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
I agree. That's not bad. But there have been some really bad ones.

BTW, I didn't post what I posted to be snarky, JesusIsAlive. I just think less scripture quoting and more rational argument is your best bet in actually talking to people that don't share your beliefs.

I hear you but I am what I am, and I do what I do.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hear you but I am what I am, and I do what I do.

You push people away from your religion, so, please continue.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hear you but I am what I am, and I do what I do.

Man is supposed to be struggling to be better than he is. We are supposed to work towards a Christlike behavior. I understand your statement, but you should be open to constructive criticism.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You push people away from your religion, so, please continue.

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory that is widely accepted as a law. JIA just wondering, did you ever learn evolution in school?

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory that is widely accepted as a law. JIA just wondering, did you ever learn evolution in school?

Bout time u come through, join da parti

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory that is widely accepted as a law. JIA just wondering, did you ever learn evolution in school?

Beat me to it Flamboyant... Saying Evolution is little more than a bunch of half-ass guesses is down right intellectually dishonest.

Hypothesis: Implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation

Theory: Implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth

Law: Implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions

Now considering those three principles, what would Biblical Creation fall under considering there is absolutely no way to prove God exist let alone Adam & Eve, Garden Of Eden, Great Flood etc.? (JesusIsAlive)

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory that is widely accepted as a law. JIA just wondering, did you ever learn evolution in school?

Got to correct you there, Evolution is NOT widely accepted as a law. It is considered a solid theory by most anyone who has done any research into it. It was past the hypothesis stage before Darwin ever published his book.

those definitions are a little broad and non-specific.

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on previous information.

A scientific Theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural phenomena.

Law is well...you get the picture. No matter what the circumstances, its always true.

Originally posted by docb77
Got to correct you there, Evolution is NOT widely accepted as a law. It is considered a solid theory by most anyone who has done any research into it. It was past the hypothesis stage before Darwin ever published his book.

Correct, but it is also perhaps the most proven Theory in science. Darwin did a very good job.

Originally posted by Alliance
those definitions are a little broad and non-specific.

A hypothesis is an educated guess based on previous information.

A scientific Theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural phenomena.

Law is well...you get the picture. No matter what the circumstances, its always true.

Even though I knew what the definitions of the three were, I decided to forgo my own wording and copy/pasted from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. You may want to argue with them; but I think either of those work well for the question posed. Though I doubt I'll get an honest answer.

MW has a good start, but when it comes to science...I dont trust standard dictionaries becuase I have often found their definitions innacurate and or incomplete. I based mine off of more scientific texts.

But you won't get a real answer from JIA. It was more for the others on the forum.

Originally posted by Alliance
Correct, but it is also perhaps the most proven Theory in science. Darwin did a very good job.

I'm trying to think of what other theories are out there that haven't progressed to law yet. relativity? Chaos theory? They're all in physics! Why'd I have to go into biology?

There are many...none really warrant discussion on a public forum.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory that is widely accepted as a law. JIA just wondering, did you ever learn evolution in school?

Yes but to me this evolution business is absurd, asinine, and foolish. That is why I refer to it as a hypothesis. Flam. did you learn Creationism in school?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yes but to me this evolution business is absurd, asinine, and foolish. That is why I refer to it as a hypothesis. Flam. did you learn Creationism in school?

Evolution has a lot more evidense and logic to back it up. Creationism seems more like a fairy tale, with no evidense to support it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Beat me to it Flamboyant... Saying Evolution is little more than a bunch of half-ass guesses is down right intellectually dishonest.

Hypothesis: Implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation

Theory: Implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth

Law: Implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions

Now considering those three principles, what would Biblical Creation fall under considering there is absolutely no way to prove God exist let alone Adam & Eve, Garden Of Eden, Great Flood etc.? (JesusIsAlive)

Let me ask you this Robtard: did your complex computer get here by an explosion? What about your television, is that too an accident? How about your residence, did that just get here on its own? Not to mention your vehicle (I am presuming to say that you own a vehicle) that too is just mere chance.

But the universe which is eminently more complex you believe just came about by random, occurrence? It takes significantly more faith for me to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God and that He created all things.

Why don't the evolutionists apply the same rational thought and scientific principles to God's true explanation concerning how we got here that they do to evolution? I know why they don't: it is because their are blinded by the god of this age (satan). No intelligent scientist would ever conclude that a computer got here by chance but yet that same erudite and scholary scientist will say that about this universe.

A)Insanity?
B) Bias?
C) Suppression of the Truth of God's Word?
D) Denial?
E) Blinded from the Truth by the devil?
F) b, c, d, and e

Let me give you all a hint: it's F but could also include A.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Let me ask you this Robtard: did your complex computer get here by an explosion? What about your television, is that too an accident? How about your residence, did that just get here on its own? Not to mention your vehicle (I am presuming to say that you own a vehicle) that too is just mere chance.

But the universe which is eminently more complex you believe just came about by random, occurrence? It takes significantly more faith for me to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God and that He created all things.

Why don't the evolutionists apply the same rational thought and scientific principles to God's true explanation concerning how we got here that they do to evolution? I know why they don't: it is because their are blinded by the god of this age (satan). No intelligent scientist would ever conclude that a computer got here by chance but yet that same erudite and scholary scientist will say that about this universe.

A)Insanity?
B) Bias?
C) Suppression of the Truth of God's Word?
D) Denial?
E) Blinded from the Truth by the devil?
F) b, c, d, and e

Let me give you all a hint: it's F but could also include A.

Allow me to give you the real reason JIA.

The reason that no scientist would say that a computer or a TV was "an accident" and that the same guy would say that evolution was (not what they say by the way), is in one little word - EVIDENCE.

Now myself, I see God in the workings of evolution. I see him behind the scenes, as it were. But there is no way to prove that. That's why Jay Gould termed it "nonoverlapping magisteriums". That is to say that the domain of religion and that of science don't cover the same principles. Religion covers the why, while science covers the how. Not completely accurate from a religious standpoint, but right on the money as far as science goes. Science can't take religion into account, it is concerned with discernable, repeatable data. Period. Nothing else.

Back to what I was saying originally, there is plenty of data that supports evolution. Science itself doesn't say whether the causative force behind evolution is accident or design, it simply describes what it sees. Microevolution has enough data that even the most religious of scientists accept it. Macroevolution also has much data behind it, though it is more open to question.

-edit-

now, compare that to your computer. We have evidence that it was constructed by an outside force. Absent that evidence, science would be forced to hypothesize that either the computer was always there, or it was created by an unknown phenomena. Lacking evidence science would not make large assumptions about what that phenomena was, it could be a force, cosmic coincident, a causative entity, it could be anything.

Read "The Beak of the Finch", then tell me there's nothing to support natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Look into the evolution of whales, from land walking beasts, to the beasts of the depths of today. There is plenty of data, and having an open mind about evolution doesn't cancel out the ability to believe that God is behind it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yes but to me this evolution business is absurd, asinine, and foolish. That is why I refer to it as a hypothesis. Flam. did you learn Creationism in school?

The only thing absurd, asinine, and foolish in this thread is you.

Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. it is a Theory. With a capitol T so fools like you can distuinguish a scinetific theory from a cockamanie idea like creationism.

Originally posted by docb77
Allow me to give you the real reason JIA.

The reason that no scientist would say that a computer or a TV was "an accident" and that the same guy would say that evolution was (not what they say by the way), is in one little word - EVIDENCE.

Now myself, I see God in the workings of evolution. I see him behind the scenes, as it were. But there is no way to prove that. That's why Jay Gould termed it "nonoverlapping magisteriums". That is to say that the domain of religion and that of science don't cover the same principles. Religion covers the why, while science covers the how. Not completely accurate from a religious standpoint, but right on the money as far as science goes. Science can't take religion into account, it is concerned with discernable, repeatable data. Period. Nothing else.

Back to what I was saying originally, there is plenty of data that supports evolution. Science itself doesn't say whether the causative force behind evolution is accident or design, it simply describes what it sees. Microevolution has enough data that even the most religious of scientists accept it. Macroevolution also has much data behind it, though it is more open to question.

-edit-

now, compare that to your computer. We have evidence that it was constructed by an outside force. Absent that evidence, science would be forced to hypothesize that either the computer was always there, or it was created by an unknown phenomena. Lacking evidence science would not make large assumptions about what that phenomena was, it could be a force, cosmic coincident, a causative entity, it could be anything.

Read "The Beak of the Finch", then tell me there's nothing to support natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Look into the evolution of whales, from land walking beasts, to the beasts of the depths of today. There is plenty of data, and having an open mind about evolution doesn't cancel out the ability to believe that God is behind it.


The reality of nature, life itself, matter, natural laws, none of this is enough evidence for you? Wow...incredible. You think the sun just got here by chance? Wow...incredible. You think water just created itself? Wow...unbelievable. You think this beautiful planet that is the only planet that is habitable and conducive to life just got from oblivion to where it is now by accident, chance explosion? Wow...impossible! But a computer is evidence because the manufacturers name is embossed on it? No one is that simple-minded, not even you. God's signature is everywhere present. Aside from the chaos created by satan and sinful humanity under him, their is order and design on this planet and in this universe. Animals have instinct for survival (just by random occurence). They should change the prevailing hypothesis of evolution and call it "the theory of random, accidental, serendipitous, coincidentally, just so happens to exist, convenient, chance occurences." Because there are many.

Originally posted by docb77
Allow me to give you the real reason JIA.

The reason that no scientist would say that a computer or a TV was "an accident" and that the same guy would say that evolution was (not what they say by the way), is in one little word - EVIDENCE.

Now myself, I see God in the workings of evolution. I see him behind the scenes, as it were. But there is no way to prove that. That's why Jay Gould termed it "nonoverlapping magisteriums". That is to say that the domain of religion and that of science don't cover the same principles. Religion covers the why, while science covers the how. Not completely accurate from a religious standpoint, but right on the money as far as science goes. Science can't take religion into account, it is concerned with discernable, repeatable data. Period. Nothing else.

Back to what I was saying originally, there is plenty of data that supports evolution. Science itself doesn't say whether the causative force behind evolution is accident or design, it simply describes what it sees. Microevolution has enough data that even the most religious of scientists accept it. Macroevolution also has much data behind it, though it is more open to question.

-edit-

now, compare that to your computer. We have evidence that it was constructed by an outside force. Absent that evidence, science would be forced to hypothesize that either the computer was always there, or it was created by an unknown phenomena. Lacking evidence science would not make large assumptions about what that phenomena was, it could be a force, cosmic coincident, a causative entity, it could be anything.

Read "The Beak of the Finch", then tell me there's nothing to support natural selection, or survival of the fittest. Look into the evolution of whales, from land walking beasts, to the beasts of the depths of today. There is plenty of data, and having an open mind about evolution doesn't cancel out the ability to believe that God is behind it.

God and evolution have as much in common as lions and guppies. God hasn't got a thing to do with the hypothesis of evolution. I know you all would like to think so. But wishful thinking is just that: air castles. Keep your hypothesis of evolution on your side of the fence don't try and associate it with God. It doesn't compute. God is God and He knows that evolution is not true. But He is just waiting for the precious fruit of the earth (those who have yet to accept Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior) then the lie of evolution, spawned by the father of lies (the devil) will be obliterated.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The reality of nature, life itself, matter, natural laws, none of this is enough evidence for you? Wow...incredible. You think the sun just got here by chance? Wow...incredible. You think water just created itself? Wow...unbelievable. You think this beautiful planet that is the only planet that is habitable and conducive to life just got from oblivion to where it is now by accident, chance explosion. Wow...impossible! But a computer is evidence because the manufacturers name is embossed on it? No one is that simple-minded, not even you. God's signature is everywhere present. Aside from the chaos created by satan and sinful humanity under him, their is order and design on this planet and in this universe. Animals have instinct for survival (just by random occurence). They should change the prevailing hypothesis of evolution and call it "the theory of random, accidental, serendipitous, coincidentally, just so happens to exist, convenient, chance occurences." Because there are many.

You and I are looking at 2 different things at the moment. I've already stated that I believe God is behind everything. The difference is that I don't think that negates the data behind evolution. Evolution doesn't mean "random, accidental, serendipitous, coincidentally, just so happens to exist, convenient, chance occurences", what it means is change. And there's plenty of evidence of that. Personally I believe that God is behind it, directing it, but that is not part of science. Science deals with physical evidence, not spiritual, and not random conjecture. I know that God created the universe, but is it so far fetched to think that he might have made rules by which creatures could evolve?

Genesis 1:24-25

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Indeed a cursory reading of Genesis would seem to say that that is the truth - "Let the earth bring forth the living creature". The theory of evolution doesn't include God, but it doesn't exclude Him either.

Originally posted by docb77
You and I are looking at 2 different things at the moment. I've already stated that I believe God is behind everything. The difference is that I don't think that negates the data behind evolution. Evolution doesn't mean "random, accidental, serendipitous, coincidentally, just so happens to exist, convenient, chance occurences", what it means is change. And there's plenty of evidence of that. Personally I believe that God is behind it, directing it, but that is not part of science. Science deals with physical evidence, not spiritual, and not random conjecture. I know that God created the universe, but is it so far fetched to think that he might have made rules by which creatures could evolve?

Genesis 1:24-25

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Indeed a cursory reading of Genesis would seem to say that that is the truth - "Let the earth bring forth the living creature". The theory of evolution doesn't include God, but it doesn't exclude Him either.

God doesn't need the devil's lie (evolution) to create anything. God creates by "speaking" things into existence instantaneously. It does not take God eons of time to create life--He is Life.

Thank you for again proving that you are nothign but ignorant.

Originally posted by Me_GuSta_ChoCha
Well Nothing Cant create something, someone had to start it, there is also that theory of "Intelligent Design" but you dont hear of it much because these days people dont want to hear about a God for some reason they would rather think we are pointless, im not saying that for the people who believe in Evolution but just to the people Who dont believe in anything period

Preach bruddah preach.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Let me ask you this Robtard: did your complex computer get here by an explosion? What about your television, is that too an accident? How about your residence, did that just get here on its own? Not to mention your vehicle (I am presuming to say that you own a vehicle) that too is just mere chance.

But the universe which is eminently more complex you believe just came about by random, occurrence? It takes significantly more faith for me to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God and that He created all things.

Why don't the evolutionists apply the same rational thought and scientific principles to God's true explanation concerning how we got here that they do to evolution? I know why they don't: it is because their are blinded by the god of this age (satan). No intelligent scientist would ever conclude that a computer got here by chance but yet that same erudite and scholary scientist will say that about this universe.

A)Insanity?
B) Bias?
C) Suppression of the Truth of God's Word?
D) Denial?
E) Blinded from the Truth by the devil?
F) b, c, d, and e

Let me give you all a hint: it's F but could also include A.

I still didn't get a "real" succint but pithy and intelligent response to this post.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God and factual information have as much in common as lions and guppies. I fixed your post.

Why not both?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I fixed your post.

I liiike the fire.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I stopped reading here:



This Thomas Heinze person does not know the fundamentals of the topic he is writing about. I read no more so I don't even know what side of the debate he is on.......but there is no such thing as "super-natural" in science. Everything that exists is natural. If God exists......God is natural. If flying hippos exist.......flying hippos are natural. If ghosts exist, ghosts are natural.

How the hell can someone sit down and write articles the length of what you have posted when they do not even know the very basics of the topic they are discussing?

Don't hate the truth that Thomas Heinze promulgates...hate the lies promoted by the intelligentsia concerning evolution.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I liiike the fire. I like the fire too. It provides light and warmth.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I like the fire too. It provides light and warmth.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Yes but to me this evolution business is absurd, asinine, and foolish. That is why I refer to it as a hypothesis. Flam. did you learn Creationism in school? Why is it absurd assinine and foolish? There is physical, factual, undeniable evidence that it has, and will continue to occur. And there is NONE of that with creationism. I did not learn creationism in school, but I did learn it in religion classes that I needed to attend in order to become comfirmed. My teacher, stated that we need not believe in creationism, because the bible is not to be taken literally.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Why is it absurd assinine and foolish? There is physical, factual, undeniable evidence that it has, and will continue to occur. And there is NONE of that with creationism. I did not learn creationism in school, but I did learn it in religion classes that I needed to attend in order to become comfirmed. My teacher, stated that we need not believe in creationism, because the bible is not to be taken literally.

Your teacher did you a great disservice.

Confirmed? So you are saying that you are Catholic but you espouse evolution? Friend this ain't B.K., you can't have it your way. You either believe God created life or you believe the lie of evolution.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God doesn't need the devil's lie (evolution) to create anything. God creates by "speaking" things into existence instantaneously. It does not take God eons of time to create life--He is Life. Why is this associated with Satan? Just curious? Creationism was totally created by man. Evolution was not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive


Your teacher did you a great disservice.

Confirmed? So you are saying that you are Catholic but you espouse evolution? Friend this ain't B.K., you can't have it your way. You either believe God created life or you believe the lie of evolution. I follow most Catholic morals. I just can't believe in creationism. I just can't. It makes no sense to me. You also cannot say evolution is a lie, for it is not. It is a theory, not a hypothesis or a lie. I am not going to believe you one bit until you provide me with full, FACTUAL EVIDENCE that disproves evolution totally, and proves creationism.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
I follow most Catholic morals. I just can't believe in creationism. I just can't. It makes no sense to me.

In this thread, page 4, article entitled, "New Definition of Science?"

Issue Date: November/December 2005

By Thomas Heinze

Check out these articles.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In this thread, page 4, article entitled, "New Definition of Science?"

Issue Date: November/December 2005

By Thomas Heinze

Check out these articles that I posted.

oops, did not mean to do that.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
In this thread, page 4, article entitled, "New Definition of Science?"

Issue Date: November/December 2005

By Thomas Heinze

Check out these articles. I agree with Evil Dead. I stopped reading. It does not disprove evolution.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
I agree with Evil Dead. I stopped reading. It does not disprove evolution.

The truth is too painful?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The truth is too painful? No, it just doesn't disprove it.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I stopped reading here:



This Thomas Heinze person does not know the fundamentals of the topic he is writing about. I read no more so I don't even know what side of the debate he is on.......but there is no such thing as "super-natural" in science. Everything that exists is natural. If God exists......God is natural. If flying hippos exist.......flying hippos are natural. If ghosts exist, ghosts are natural.

How the hell can someone sit down and write articles the length of what you have posted when they do not even know the very basics of the topic they are discussing?

Thomas Heinze is saying that that is what they are saying. He is not saying that.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
No, it just doesn't disprove it.

You'll never know: remember you did not take the time to read it. Some people avoid things because of fear of what they might discover.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You'll never know: remember you did not take the time to read it. Some people avoid things because of fear of what they might discover. Can you sum it up for me then? Just because lipids, protiens, etc. are formed regularly in living cells does not mean it is impossible for them to form outside a cell.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Can you sum it up for me then? Just because lipids, protiens, etc. are formed regularly in living cells does not mean it is impossible for them to form outside a cell.

Ya got to read it. I don't want to ruin the surprise.