Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So because you don't believe the Bible to be correct you are unable to discuss Biblical Studies?Wow... I don't believe in Buddhism but often I still have to discuss it...
And it shows. 😉
Did you notice how I was relaying what JIA believed and that 😮U812: was telling me that was wrong? 😮U812:needs to tell JIA that, not me because I'm not the one who believes that way. You should back read first...
Originally posted by Publius II
People accept a theory as "truth" when it is the best explanation for any given phenomenon. Evolution has two hundred years' worth of painstaking research and hundreds of thousands of credible proponents backing it; your "truth" has nothing but the written words of fallible men who died over a millennium before the advent of the accepted scientific method.Fair choice?
Two hundred years of painstaking research? Darwin introduced his theory in 1859 (that’s only 150 years). Hundreds of thousands of credible proponents? I think you are using hyperbole.
Question: has any scientist ever observed (empirically) life arise spontaneously from non-life? Has any scientist observed macroevolution occur? Has any scientist ever created new genetic information by random mutations of DNA?
None of the events that evolutionary scientists claim happened in nature has been proven nor duplicated in a laboratory. Everything that evolution purports is unscientific because known of it has been observed to occur using the scientific method.
Mathematical formulae make up the VERIFICATION LANGUAGE of science. Formulae are the only reliable way to test a theory. Every scientific theory has a formula, except the Theory of Evolution. Darwinists have never been able to derive a working Evolution Formula because Evolution theory does not work.
http://darwinconspiracy.com/article_1_rev2.php
Prove it.No one needs to prove you wrong because your assertions have no backing whatsoever; no logic, no empirical evidence, nothing. The burden of proof falls on you, and by nature, yours is an impossible position to validate. After all, it's all about "faith," isn't it? [/B]
There is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for evolution. The invisible attributes of God (that people are looking for and demand Christians to prove) are clearly seen. They are understood by the things that are made. This is the only planet where life exists and that is by design. Planets, stars, and complex life do not create themselves. Natural laws and conscience are not the product of humans. The eternal power (energy) and Godhead (i.e. deity or divinity) of God is unmistakably apparent inasmuch as you are without excuse. According to the first law of thermodynamics energy (i.e. God’s eternal power) cannot be created nor destroyed. This universe had a beginning because it is still expanding which means that it started from a point and thus is not eternal. An enormous amount of energy was necessary to produce the big bang explosion/expansion. In addition, the energy required to cause matter to exist, to power the sun, and other stars, the revolution of the planets, the rotation of the earth (i.e. the laws of physics i.e. the four fundamental forces of nature, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of planetary motion), the laws of chemistry, the laws of mathematics, the law of life (i.e. biogenesis), the laws of logic, uniformity of nature—all had to come from somewhere. Something or Someone had to preexist the universe in order to be the Cause of it. This First Cause had to be all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-present. Existing outside of time this Entity had to be eternal. Energy is eternal. It is irrational to believe that this eternal energy that produced the universe and the laws that govern its existence is not personal, all-powerful , all-intelligent, logical, and orderly because we can observe intelligence, order, and complex design (e.g. the human cell, DNA, 11 systems of the human body that work together for life to exist, ecosystems, hydrologic cycle, photosynthesis, etc).
Originally posted by AngryManatee
But the problem with that is that's not how the theory of evolution works. We already have whales and hippos. You wouldn't see a hippo turn into a whale or vice versa, so you're not going to find a "transitional" fossil showing a hippo turning into a whale, and that just shows how poor your understanding of the theory really is.
I never said that a hippo would turn into a whale that's why I asked for evidence of a transitional fossil.
I'm sorry JesusIsAlive that you feel this way but I do not know why you would think that life only exists on this planet, why would god only create life here and not somewhere else. Why do you believe the bible word for word when it is clear, at least to me that it is a way to teach you to live your life. There is many things that we do not know including science and about god, the bible teaches us that we must learn and doing so may question our faith in him but we must not become blind to what is around us and the gift that he has given us to learn and to grow.
Something else that I have been thinking off is what if life is not that rare, what I mean is what if life is always trying to become and it is the planet that has to be right for it to happen. I look at life here and see how it can overcome almost any environment that it is in and life being on every part of this planet so what if life would spring up anywhere if god created a planet that was right?
Originally posted by .😮U812:.
As with JesusIsAlive post about the creation of Adam I see this as a metaphor as well, god created Adam from the earth and breathed life into him. We are made of the same stuff as the earth and the heavens, god created life from non-organic material and gave it the spark of life. I don't see this as much different than how science says that it happened, non-organic material forming organic material. The bible doesn't say that Adam was a fully formed man and god is not subject to time as we know it which the bible says as well so for him a million years is just a blink of the eye.
God does not say a lot of things, but He never referred to Adam as a single-celled organism or a child. He called Adam a man.
Originally posted by Robtard
Wouldn't matter if by some chance of insane luck every fossil showing a (beneficial)gradual change in-line with environmental pressures were to be found for one or every species on the planet, he'd simply subscribe it to God's work, or maybe Devil trickery.
Do I look worried?
🙂
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveI don't know why you feel that way, man doesn't have to mean only one but can mean many and the bible doesn't say that god created only one man or woman but created man and woman. Paul talks about man and or Adam in the singular but not in Genisis.
Don't worry he was, that is what a man is.