Originally posted by lord xyz
The fact that the things Templares posted has the made-up words "evolutionism" and "evolutionist", makes me not take it seriously... or even read it.
Wha? The only time i see a made up term like "evolutionist" or "darwinism" in my post(s) was in John R. Cole's quote. There is none on the debunkings (IIRC).
Originally posted by TemplaresYes, you quoted from someone who uses made-up words, trying to make a point, by doing that, it makes me think that you use the words too, or think of them as real words as appose to dogma. So I don't think I'll read it.
Wha? The only time i see a made up term like "evolutionist" or "darwinism" in my post(s) was in John R. Cole's quote. There is none on the debunkings (IIRC).
I just know that I am going to get slaughtered here for posting in this thread...but I will anyway. Please be kind! LOL!
You know, when I think about why I believe in God and his being the creator the same thing always pops into my head first. I am not going to qoute any verses or anything, just a plain human thought. I think of babies. Honestly.*smiles* I think that out of the act of sex, some fluids mix and produce in a mere 9 months...a fully formed, breathing baby. It's an awesome thought, no? Female eggs and male sperm mixed up and BAM a living breathing baby! I would say that there had to be a mastermind behind that and I would say that God would be that mastermind. I know most of you disagree and that is alright. But do take the time to think about the little miracles in life and ask yourself how it all started.
Originally posted by Alliance
What I said. Darwinism is not a made up word. It may have been used out of context, but tis still real. "Evolutionist" is a fabricatated response to "creationist" (which actually is a word).
Originally posted by AllianceHere you say Evolutionism is a made up term. So which is it?
Darwinism was a term, but it diesd out in the early 20th century, it was used in contexts such as "social Darwinism." Evolutionist is a made up term. Anyone who believes in facts is an "evolutionist"
Okay, Darwanism, might be a real word, even though it's saying Darwin has a religion, which is false, evolutionism isn't a word, it's evolution, and that's the word scientists use.
Originally posted by marcuBabies are made because the genetic information on the sperms and eggs, create a formula which develops into a baby in 9 months. The reason why the cells have the babies? The same reason why Chlorine and Sodium make table salt. Chemical reactions. It's also because the process in making the child was also used to make the parents.
I just know that I am going to get slaughtered here for posting in this thread...but I will anyway. Please be kind! LOL!You know, when I think about why I believe in God and his being the creator the same thing always pops into my head first. I am not going to qoute any verses or anything, just a plain human thought. I think of babies. Honestly.*smiles* I think that out of the act of sex, some fluids mix and produce in a mere 9 months...a fully formed, breathing baby. It's an awesome thought, no? Female eggs and male sperm mixed up and BAM a living breathing baby! I would say that there had to be a mastermind behind that and I would say that God would be that mastermind. I know most of you disagree and that is alright. But do take the time to think about the little miracles in life and ask yourself how it all started.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Babies are made because the genetic information on the sperms and eggs, create a formula which develops into a baby in 9 months. The reason why the cells have the babies? The same reason why Chlorine and Sodium make table salt. Chemical reactions. It's also because the process in making the child was also used to make the parents.
Uh, I must disagree here. There is a HUGE difference between the chemical outcome of the making of table salt etc, verses a living breathing human being. And that we all come out equal. Noses, eyes, hair, fingers etc...yet out of the gazillion people in the world......we all look totally different. I find it astounding! Just astounding. You are not taking the time to REEEEEALLY think about the magnitude of the mircale here. Everyone only has 1 nose, 1 set of eyes on and on, yet we all look different. Really stop and think about it. It's amazing!
You mix the 2 chemicals together and every single time you get the same outcome, salt. But the baby making act is always the same yet the outcome is different EVERY time!
Originally posted by marcu
Uh, I must disagree here. There is a HUGE difference between the chemical outcome of the making of table salt etc, verses a living breathing human being. And that we all come out equal. Noses, eyes, hair, fingers etc...yet out of the gazillion people in the world......we all look totally different. I find it astounding! Just astounding. You are not taking the time to REEEEEALLY think about the magnitude of the mircale here. Everyone only has 1 nose, 1 set of eyes on and on, yet we all look different. Really stop and think about it. It's amazing!You mix the 2 chemicals together and every single time you get the same outcome, salt. But the baby making act is always the same yet the outcome is different EVERY time!
Um, all the "differences" in humans are superficial. Humans are one of the LEAST diverse species on the planet. Really, most of evolution was concerned with internal function, which is why we share about 70% of our genes with the bannana plant.
Originally posted by Alliance
What I said. Darwinism is not a made up word. It may have been used out of context, but tis still real. "Evolutionist" is a fabricatated response to "creationist" (which actually is a word).
I know there is at least one person on these forums who uses the word "Flukist" to describe adherents to the theory of evolution. I do believe it is meant to be derogatory - like so many made up words.
I considered putting it in place of my Anti-Crust Smurf title.
I have to say I believe in both. One too much evidence and proof exists to deny evolution. At the same time though theologists (scientists i don't know which) have found out what the Ark of the Covenant looks like, where Mount Sinai is, and where Moses parted the Reed Sea. Also they found out scientific theories as to how each of the plagues ocurred.
Originally posted by Zero25
At the same time though theologists (scientists i don't know which) have found out what the Ark of the Covenant looks like, where Mount Sinai is, and where Moses parted the Reed Sea. Also they found out scientific theories as to how each of the plagues ocurred.
Erm...no credible sicentist, not one that is part of the scientific community. None of these thisng have been substantiated to my knowledge.
Originally posted by Zero25
I tend to watch Discoverey a lot if I find the name or watch it again, I'll give you the name.
I believe I have read about the "finding" you are referring to. They didn't discover anything, they have used the Bible to plot a possible route that the Israelites followed, it isn't necessarily accurate. If the Israelites left Egypt as the Bible claims, and the landmarks in the story are accurate, it is possible the route they followed was the one used by the theologians that we are discussing.
I do not believe they were scientists, a theologian is, imo, for the most part a biased individual that has studied heavily his religion, and sometimes others, he is not a scientist. I think perhaps an atheist could possibly be considered an objective theologian, although I doubt an atheist would waste his time, and would probably consider himself a philosopher of religion or a historian of religion.
Originally posted by Regret
I believe I have read about the "finding" you are referring to. They didn't discover anything, they have used the Bible to plot a possible route that the Israelites followed, it isn't necessarily accurate. If the Israelites left Egypt as the Bible claims, and the landmarks in the story are accurate, it is possible the route they followed was the one used by the theologians that we are discussing.I do not believe they were scientists, a theologian is, imo, for the most part a biased individual that has studied heavily his religion, and sometimes others, he is not a scientist. I think perhaps an atheist could possibly be considered an objective theologian, although I doubt an atheist would waste his time, and would probably consider himself a philosopher of religion or a historian of religion.
Thank you for the correction and point taken.