horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
This tells me coming from a Christian that you do not believe in the one you choose to worship merely
because of the denial of truth, fact and wisdom.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
because of the denial of truth, fact and wisdom.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
McBell
Unbound
Assume much?
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
Well yeah, maybe you can say that, but when it comes to finding the truth, especially one that is so classically eluding, I choose to keep an open mind.
barek333
Member
No, my claim is that if Angellous thinks that everything came to be at the same point in time there just wouldn't be enough place.
But of course if he said that they 'poofed' into existence at different periods of time then it would be possible and it would be like God is trying to deliberatley trick us by 'putting them there at different points of time. Which then would be the same as if he put fossils in the specific places in the ground. The both claims are then even more improbable then if everything 'poofed' into existence at once.
But since the time humanity started to observe the nature there were no signs of new species that 'poofed' into existence. And since we observed a lot of species going extinct in the same period of time we can raise the question why then if during the time before our observation started species came to be but now suddenly that is not the case. It can also be a part of His plan...but I just think that is..even for this kind of discussion to far-fetched
Oh and Angellous thank you for complimenting my English
newhope101
Active Member
No, my claim is that if Angellous thinks that everything came to be at the same point in time there just wouldn't be enough place.
But of course if he said that they 'poofed' into existence at different periods of time then it would be possible and it would be like God is trying to deliberatley trick us by 'putting them there at different points of time. Which then would be the same as if he put fossils in the specific places in the ground. The both claims are then even more improbable then if everything 'poofed' into existence at once.
But since the time humanity started to observe the nature there were no signs of new species that 'poofed' into existence. And since we observed a lot of species going extinct in the same period of time we can raise the question why then if during the time before our observation started species came to be but now suddenly that is not the case. It can also be a part of His plan...but I just think that is..even for this kind of discussion to far-fetched
Oh and Angellous thank you for complimenting my English
Your horizontal gene transfer killed LUCA, your tree of life is a burning bush, you cannot 'poof' life into existence in a controlled laboratory environment and still you criticize others stances
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others.[16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[21] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."[39]
Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
newhope101
Active Member
I toy with the idea that the tree of life, that Adam & Eve ate from, as representative of "TOE". The 'evil' tree of life, so to speak. Materialistic, faithless, and reducing the power of God to an algorithm based on probabilities. It may be a literal account but nonethe less conveys this meaning.
That is, there will be those that adhere to creation account and those that eat of the reasonings of man and follow TOE, abandoning the 'love they had at first', or perhaps never had'.
The biblical spiritual tree of life requires faith, paricularly in light of toe's biased theoretical modelling and its exposure to the community as fact.
What do you believe the biblical Tree that Adam and Eve ate from to deserve death relates to?
That is, there will be those that adhere to creation account and those that eat of the reasonings of man and follow TOE, abandoning the 'love they had at first', or perhaps never had'.
The biblical spiritual tree of life requires faith, paricularly in light of toe's biased theoretical modelling and its exposure to the community as fact.
What do you believe the biblical Tree that Adam and Eve ate from to deserve death relates to?
Last edited:
barek333
Member
The beginning of life has nothing to do with the ToE.
And I dont understand what point you wanted to make with those two segments. I mean you just acknowledged the fact that most of the people that do science for a living...so that means the ones who have the best understanding and information on the subject are by a big,big majority proponents of the ToE.
And the regular people of course dont understand it in such a big number..which is sad and I hope that number will increase during the time. And if they want to believe that god put that first speck of life there they sure can(until science positively solves that one too).
And I dont understand what point you wanted to make with those two segments. I mean you just acknowledged the fact that most of the people that do science for a living...so that means the ones who have the best understanding and information on the subject are by a big,big majority proponents of the ToE.
And the regular people of course dont understand it in such a big number..which is sad and I hope that number will increase during the time. And if they want to believe that god put that first speck of life there they sure can(until science positively solves that one too).
Im an Atheist
Biologist
A laboratory has proven that life could of started off with-out a creator. They replicated early earth (primordial conditions), in the Lab, then placed separate organelles into the environment. The environment, was then zapped with electricity, to simulate lightening. I don't know how long it took, but eventually, the organelles came together to form a simple bacteria cell.
So now it has been proven life could of started without a creator, doesn't that leave even more doubt?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's because you have the higher reasoning skills of a two year old.
I knew you weren't really a Creationist because you never accused yourself of not being a Christian.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's poetry, Quag. Beautiful.
McBell
Unbound
Not to mention the fact that a 'real' creationist cannot go more than two posts in a row without revealing their blatant ignorance of Evolution.
David M
Well-Known Member
So how do you account for the indisputable fact that we observe evolution happening within species and we see new species evolving from old ones (especially true in the case of polyploidy in plants)?
By no longer being a Creationist, apparently.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was no match for the powerful arguments presented against my view.
I found that I couldn't continue futher without trolling my own thread.
horizon_mj1
Well-Known Member
As well as most people over two, but this does not negate facts being although not always pleasant or what people want them to be, are truth. I always disliked the supposed theoretical question; "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" We now know that yes in fact it does. Sound waves are created by the gravitational pull to the ground and the tree impacting. Sound waves bounce within the earth's atmosphere for quite some time if not indefinitely.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
How insightful.
Hello EA
Is this your answer or is this an answer from the book? I am curious to know since it is possible that essential created categories hold, only changing in externalities and that these essenential categories may not be same as current species classifications of science?
...