creation or evolution

[my_pet_worm]

think about this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if people forgot about god, he would be gone

 

 

 

if people forgot about evolution, it would come back with scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so if there were no god believers, there would be no god

[Mercifull]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/434566.stm

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1553008.stm

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4204021.stm

 

 

 

Articles from the BBC about genetic and fossil evidence showing that Whales are infact closely related to hooved animals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, as for your analogy my_pet_worm: Its a bit flawed. If everyone in the world forgets that I exist or dont belive doesn't mean that I don't.

[Pur304]

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather die a fool and not suffer the consequences 8)

[magekillr]

 

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather die a fool and not suffer the consequences 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aloha to that

[Mercifull]

 

 

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather die a fool and not suffer the consequences 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aloha to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What consequences eh? What consequences would the merciful lord do to a person that respects and cares for his friends, family and colleagues. Someone that abides by the laws and does good things. Someone that does a lot fo work and money raising for charities helping others. And I do all this because I am a good person, not in blackmail to get into heaven. If God exists and is just, why would he pesecute me. I'm far more "christian" than most christians I just don't belive.

[magekillr]

 

 

 

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather die a fool and not suffer the consequences 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aloha to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What consequences eh? What consequences would the merciful lord do to a person that respects and cares for his friends, family and colleagues. Someone that abides by the laws and does good things. Someone that does a lot fo work and money raising for charities helping others. And I do all this because I am a good person, not in blackmail to get into heaven. If God exists and is just, why would he pesecute me. I'm far more "christian" than most christians I just don't belive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the part about u being more christian than most is very true...and its very sad

[Astralinre]

 

 

 

Anyone that denies evolution is a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Id rather die a fool and not suffer the consequences 8)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aloha to that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What consequences eh? What consequences would the merciful lord do to a person that respects and cares for his friends, family and colleagues. Someone that abides by the laws and does good things. Someone that does a lot fo work and money raising for charities helping others. And I do all this because I am a good person, not in blackmail to get into heaven. If God exists and is just, why would he pesecute me. I'm far more "christian" than most christians I just don't belive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the key doctrines in Christianity is the sinfulness of all men. According to the Bible, anything short of perfection is unacceptable in God's sight. In Romans, it's written that "All of sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" and that "The wages of sin is death". It doesn't matter how you compare to other people; what matters is how you compare to God. And no one can live up to God's standard. The only way to get into heaven is to repent of your sins and let Christ be your substitute. It's hardly unfair. Anyway, I'm afraid this is starting to seem like I'm "recruiting", which the mods disapprove of, so please PM me if I didn't explain the Christian view of the situation well enough, or if you'd just like to discuss your problems with Christian theology more.

[Pete_the_Viscous]

 

 

 

What consequences eh? What consequences would the merciful lord do to a person that respects and cares for his friends, family and colleagues. Someone that abides by the laws and does good things. Someone that does a lot fo work and money raising for charities helping others. And I do all this because I am a good person, not in blackmail to get into heaven. If God exists and is just, why would he pesecute me. I'm far more "christian" than most christians I just don't belive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hear, hear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm going to have to go with Evolution... for several reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One) there is quite a lot of evidence--by which I mean scientific evidence, not something based on faith alone--for it. No proof, obviously... but what can really be proved, other than abstract things (if even they can).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two) creation sounds so... unrealistic to me. I mean, obviously, if God does exist, then that rules out there needing to be an explanation for anything he does--he's GOD, after all: what he says goes, hypothetically. However, I can't imagine why he would do it like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Three) not a huge point, but Evolution does allow for some manner of creation story being true--it's quite possible that the world/the universe/life was created by god, then left to do what it felt like--at least, as far as evolution is concerned, it is. Creation, on the other hand, though it DOES allow for some evolution--it's hard to deny that things ARE evolving, whether or not they evolved from dust to what they are now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Etc.) Etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What it boils down to is this: if the bible is true, then so is Creation... and I'm not going to go any further into whether or not it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Oh, I hope you gathered that I'm perfectly willing to believe Creation... if at any point I come across some reason to believe in God, or if he tells me it himself, then I'll believe it--as I said, if God's possible, then so is Creation).

[insane]

Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for some reason archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils. Why? The answer seems obvious to me; there aren't enough. If there were, there would be no need to fake and blindly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this is all heresay though. Take it how you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Merc, cut the loaded term crap. Or maybe I could use one myself;

 

 

 

Anyone who denies creation is a fool :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ Not only is this and what you said completely illogical, it's condescending and not needed - and actually weakens your argument.

[magekillr]

Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for some reason archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils. Why? The answer seems obvious to me; there aren't enough. If there were, there would be no need to fake and blindly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this is all heresay though. Take it how you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Merc, cut the loaded term crap. Or maybe I could use one myself;

 

 

 

Anyone who denies creation is a fool :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ Not only is this and what you said completely illogical, it's condescending and not needed - and actually weakens your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow...i forgot that Darwin actually did admit that his theories were false until more evidence was found...shulda posted earlier

[insane]

 

Charles Darwin himself said that the fossil record would have to improve by vast amounts before he himself could believe evolution proven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you think about it, it would be logical that finding an inbetween-species fossil would be just as common as finding many other fossils, if it actually takes millions of years to make a transition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for some reason archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils. Why? The answer seems obvious to me; there aren't enough. If there were, there would be no need to fake and blindly believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course this is all heresay though. Take it how you want.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Merc, cut the loaded term crap. Or maybe I could use one myself;

 

 

 

Anyone who denies creation is a fool :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^ Not only is this and what you said completely illogical, it's condescending and not needed - and actually weakens your argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wow...i forgot that Darwin actually did admit that his theories were false until more evidence was found...shulda posted earlier

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You misread what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said that Darwin wouldn't call evolution 'proven'. He didn't admit his theories were false - he said that they were true - but not proven, and that he was sure that the fossil record would improve to prove his thoughts.

[____]

Basically, in Darwin's opinion, his own theries weren't strong enough - at the time.

[Mercifull]

archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils.

Can you please provide some sources for this statement. Either from a non bias news source such as BBC or Reuters or some Science Magazine so that I can look it up.

[goku_nazz]

I'm studying religion and society at the moment.. in fact, the main assessment is about Darwinism. The Catholic Church was stunned when Darwin released his theory of evolution, and they did not know how to respond to it, because it totally destroyed their creation stories. Through the period of enlightenment, Catholicism grew to accept evolution and now knows the creation stories to be metaphorical

[insane]

 

archaeologists have been found to lie and fake fossils - and the sad part is, scientists have fallen for these obvious fakes, because they are so desperate to find fossils.

Can you please provide some sources for this statement. Either from a non bias news source such as BBC or Reuters or some Science Magazine so that I can look it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure thing, I believe I called it heresay because at the moment I can't remember where I read it. I'm going to work now, so I won't be around for 10 hours at least...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just googled it (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22 ... tion&meta=)... but i don't have time to look, but it looks like there's some stuff there, and not from bias sources either... maybe they are *shrugs*. I didn't see the example I was looking for, the example I remember reading about had something to do with a scientist fixating a tail to a bird that would possibly link the birds to the reptiles, and it was put on display in a museum for a long time until they finally realized what had happened.

[magekillr]

I'm studying religion and society at the moment.. in fact, the main assessment is about Darwinism. The Catholic Church was stunned when Darwin released his theory of evolution, and they did not know how to respond to it, because it totally destroyed their creation stories. Through the period of enlightenment, Catholicism grew to accept evolution and now knows the creation stories to be metaphorical

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i dont even look at catholics as Christian anymore...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the corruption of the past....the present...not to mention 90% of catholics dont even read a bible

[killkill1234]

Reading through this, I've noticed that the Big bang theory comes up alot. However, scientists are now moving away from the Big bang theory. There is alot of new observations made that doesnt hold up the theory.

[legolas777]

sorry nvm

[magekillr]

yeah since they have a completely different doctrine

[killkill1234]

I've just read through some more of this, and the thing Insane is talking about was in Time a couple of years ago; i remeber reading this article; it was on the front cover titled: Missing link between birds and reptiles found! or something similar. Then a few months after that, a retraction was published saying that the "link" was a fake. However, this news was not on the front, but hidden within the magazine.

[Pur304]

Most people I know believe in evolution. The media I see and here is definatly biased on the subject of creation vs evolution. There is a lot of evidence which supports creation, but sadly the wrong people are discovering this and it is buried and replaced with the crap that is produced to counter this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pre-historic human skulls, pah! You bring me one that doesnt have a dislocated jaw!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ofcourse dinosaurs were real, but they have become victims to natural disasters and predators which have caused them to become extinct (Noahs flood will have wiped out the ones that werent onboard his ship.) So no one should use dinosaurs as an argument against creation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And you say how can you fit so many animals onboard Noahs ark? Check the measurements in the Bible and see for yourself how huge the ark was! There are ships with animal cargo's that can carry animals by the thousands, literally!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and there are quite a few animals that evolution will NEVER explain! Giraffes, bombardeer beatles and Woodpeckers (these especially) have baffled Darwinists for ages! Perhaps can so some research on these miraculous creatures. These are just a few of many!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also an experiment that NASA conducted once revealed that the sun had stopped moving for an almost 24 hour period!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."

 

 

 

So the sun stood still and the moon stopped till the people had revenge upon their enemies.

 

 

 

...So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12-13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Co-incidence? I think not! http://www.yfiles.com/orbital.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is just some evidence (not total proof) that is not revealed in the media! Thank god for the internet!

[insane]

Mercifull, I think you trust bbc?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... rans.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*shrugs* this is the one I was thinking about.

[Pur304]

I doubt many will find out about that though, unfortunatly.

[Mayjest]

Insane, did you read the article all the way? While the 'full' skeleton was a fake, the two individual pieces were previously undiscovered animals, one a dinosaur that lived in trees, and the other a bird whose wings ended dinosaur's hands. It was not one, but two, missing links.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the original point about scientists willing to accept fake evidence also stands. The researcher's claim that they told National Geographic they were concerned, while NG claim the researchers never told them squat. One of them is lying.

[insane]

Insane, did you read the article all the way? While the 'full' skeleton was a fake, the two individual pieces were previously undiscovered animals, one a dinosaur that lived in trees, and the other a bird whose wings ended dinosaur's hands. It was not one, but two, missing links.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the original point about scientists willing to accept fake evidence also stands. The researcher's claim that they told National Geographic they were concerned, while NG claim the researchers never told them squat. One of them is lying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea I read *most* of it... and I noted the end, however it was irrelevant to the point I was trying to prove - my point? They fudge fossils, and people blindly buy into it because it "proves" evolution.