100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
The ONLY EVIDENCE is this:
The CHANGES occurring with the bacteria or fruit flies, for instance..... or with anything else for that matter.... are STILL.....ONLY ....taking place WITHIN ..ITS... OWN... KIND. And bible believers have NO problem with that. BUT........ To say that any one KIND of species has changed into a whole other KIND of species , hasn't happpened yet.....and isn't going to happen ever. Actually...let me re-phrase this: Instead of using the word "SPECIES", I think it is better actually, to just use the word , "KIND" ... because using the word ,"species", may be throwing some people off here. So...instead of saying from now on, that There are many variations within each species(which there are also , of course)..... it is better to say , There are many variations WITHIN EACH "KIND " !!!  And the CHANGES occurring , are ALWAYS STILL HAPPENING WITHIN ITS OWN KIND. WHY? Because God's Word says , "ALL...THINGS...REPRODUCE...AFTER....ITS...OWN...KIND". and GOD'S WORD DOES NOT LIE.... and NEITHER DOES GOD !!!   AND .....there can be MANY MANY MANY VARIATIONS WITHIN EACH "KIND"(because God is a God of VARIETY )..... BUT ONE "KIND" WILL NEVER NEVER EVER CHANGE INTO A WHOLE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OTHER "KIND" !!!! Note: The word "KIND" , in terms of our modern classification systems, would probably be closer to the word, "Family" . And so that would mean then, that "Kind" (Family ) is not the same as a "Species"......... ALTHOUGH there are many different species and sub- species within each "KIND" (Family). OR in other words, MANY VARIATIONS within a "KIND". And it all lines right up with scripture : ALL.. THINGS.. REPRODUCE .. AFTER.. ITS.. OWN.. KIND. YET.....THERE CAN BE MANY MANY MANY VARIATIONS WITHIN EACH KIND.... (as there can also be many variations within each species ..... as well as within each sub-species ..... which are still, just the many many different variations within a "KIND".) Yes. I think "KIND" ,is a much better terminology to use ... instead of "SPECIES". I think this may help clarify some misunderstanding, about the former MIS-use of the word ,"species" here |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it so hard for humans to believe that it took time for their species to develop? Why are people content believing that they are nothing more then the manifestation of dust in a 24 hour period? Hey i say let people believe what they want to believe. The truth is always going to be the truth regardless of our petty human beliefs. No sense wasting time arguing about. Frankly i think we have more important things to do.  I could not stop people from believing what they choose. But I would like to understand why people worship the Bible as if God were contained within the pages. It is just a book. It is not a supreme being. At least I understand what science is after. I don't agree with all of the conclusions of science and I am skeptical of most of them, but at least I understand the reason for it. Why can't people just have faith in what is without having to cling to other people's ideas? I think true faith is to accept what is even if you don't know the how or why of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of using the word "SPECIES", I think it is better actually, to just use the word , "KIND" ... Then consider yourself a "kind" of primate. Perhaps all "primates" are one "kind." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay, what about the bonobo chimps?  While they may appear chimpanzee-like to the untrained eye, bonobos are different. "In terms of body mass, they are very similar to chimpanzees," de Waal explains. "But they're much more gracile. They have longer legs, they're slender, they don't have the huge shoulders and thick neck [of chimps], and they have a smaller head. They're also more elegantly built and move more elegantly than chimps. And when the bonobos stand upright, they look very human-like because they have these different body proportions." It's their social behaviour, however, that's the real pièce de résistance. "In terms of social behaviour, bonobos are almost the opposite of the chimpanzee in that they're relatively peaceful," de Waal remarks. "As far as we know, they don't have inter-group warfare going on, they eat a little bit of meat but much less than chimpanzees, and they're not great hunters." But here's where it gets interesting: "Male dominance is not there. It's rather the opposite where females dominate the show." And it doesn't stop there! "They seem to resolve a lot of their conflicts with sexual behaviour," he says. "If two bonobos have a fight, they may make up with a sexual reconciliation, which is typical for their species. So there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on that has more social meaning than reproductive meaning." Their sexuality also mirrors humans in a couple of other ways, too. "Bonobos have a greater variety of sexual postures," he reveals. "The bonobos can do it any way they want – and they can do it face to face also. So positionally – so to speak – they have a richer repertoire. And their sexual behaviour is not just male to female. It's also female-to-female and male-to-male and male-to-juvenile." In fact, they make the human sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies look tame. But what does this all mean for theories of human evolution? "The bonobo is almost a complete contrast to the chimpanzee, even though the two species are so closely related," de Waal explains. "So there's no reason, from the biological perspective, to suggest that the chimps are a more important model than the bonobo, because they're equidistant to us." As de Waal suggests, "it's possible that the common ancestor was not exactly like the chimpanzee, but it may have been something in between a chimp and a bonobo. That means maybe there was aggression and male dominance [as some theories suggest], but it's very well possible there were maybe lots of other tendencies that have not been emphasised so much in models of human evolution." …like the propensity for pleasureful sexual activity, for instance! http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/BonobosLikeHumans.html Jeannie...a Bonobo is still a CHIMP..... a Pygmy Chimpanzee. The Bonobo is Just ONE of the MANY Different VARIATIONS ..... But STILL WITHIN... ITS...OWN... "KIND"..." In other words, the bobobo is not a WHOLE OTHER "KIND".... again, it is just a variation of the SAME "KIND". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay, what about the bonobo chimps? While they may appear chimpanzee-like to the untrained eye, bonobos are different. "In terms of body mass, they are very similar to chimpanzees," de Waal explains. "But they're much more gracile. They have longer legs, they're slender, they don't have the huge shoulders and thick neck [of chimps], and they have a smaller head. They're also more elegantly built and move more elegantly than chimps. And when the bonobos stand upright, they look very human-like because they have these different body proportions." It's their social behaviour, however, that's the real pièce de résistance. "In terms of social behaviour, bonobos are almost the opposite of the chimpanzee in that they're relatively peaceful," de Waal remarks. "As far as we know, they don't have inter-group warfare going on, they eat a little bit of meat but much less than chimpanzees, and they're not great hunters." But here's where it gets interesting: "Male dominance is not there. It's rather the opposite where females dominate the show." And it doesn't stop there! "They seem to resolve a lot of their conflicts with sexual behaviour," he says. "If two bonobos have a fight, they may make up with a sexual reconciliation, which is typical for their species. So there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on that has more social meaning than reproductive meaning." Their sexuality also mirrors humans in a couple of other ways, too. "Bonobos have a greater variety of sexual postures," he reveals. "The bonobos can do it any way they want – and they can do it face to face also. So positionally – so to speak – they have a richer repertoire. And their sexual behaviour is not just male to female. It's also female-to-female and male-to-male and male-to-juvenile." In fact, they make the human sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies look tame. But what does this all mean for theories of human evolution? "The bonobo is almost a complete contrast to the chimpanzee, even though the two species are so closely related," de Waal explains. "So there's no reason, from the biological perspective, to suggest that the chimps are a more important model than the bonobo, because they're equidistant to us." As de Waal suggests, "it's possible that the common ancestor was not exactly like the chimpanzee, but it may have been something in between a chimp and a bonobo. That means maybe there was aggression and male dominance [as some theories suggest], but it's very well possible there were maybe lots of other tendencies that have not been emphasised so much in models of human evolution." …like the propensity for pleasureful sexual activity, for instance! http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/BonobosLikeHumans.html Jeannie...a Bonobo is still a CHIMP..... a Pygmy Chimpanzee. The Bonobo is Just ONE of the MANY Different VARIATIONS ..... But STILL WITHIN... ITS...OWN... "KIND"..." In other words, the bobobo is not a WHOLE OTHER "KIND".... again, it is just a variation of the SAME "KIND". I am saying that "Kind" could simply be "Primate." We are Primates. So are Chimps. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 03/14/09 04:10 AM
|
|
Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong.  I've heard the same thing. How convienient. Sort of justifies the lack of demonstratable evidence to say it takes a few million years for this to happen. But hey - it's a fact you know. Just take our word for it. No wait... can't relly on human testimony. Now what. Sounds like a religion to me. The thing is Elijay, we have posted evidence after evidence, and each time you just brush it off, without actually looking at it. For instance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Also, the big difference between Religion and Science(and Evolution) is that religion is set-up for "just take my word for it"(i.e. Papal Infallibility, in layman's terms, if the Pope says god told him, you have to take it on faith as being true) In Science, you have peer review. Basically, you come up with a (testable) theory, it has to stand up to people trying to disprove it. Also, you have to keep in mind the Scientific definition of the word "theory", which, is basically, an idea that ties a group of facts together. Inkracer...about your article: ALL that is occurring there are mutations ....which is all still occurring WITHIN ITS OWN KIND. It is still BACTERIA!!!! In other words, the bacteria did not become something of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND!! It is still bacteria..still occurring within its own "KIND". And btw, creationist have NO argument about the mutations occuring.... because in this case, the mutations did not mutate into anything other than what it already was. So..that "opinion" stated at the end of the article , was just the author's "opinion" only. Does any of this help make things a bit more clearer now, Inkracer? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 03/14/09 06:28 AM
|
|
Eljay, what about the bonobo chimps? While they may appear chimpanzee-like to the untrained eye, bonobos are different. "In terms of body mass, they are very similar to chimpanzees," de Waal explains. "But they're much more gracile. They have longer legs, they're slender, they don't have the huge shoulders and thick neck [of chimps], and they have a smaller head. They're also more elegantly built and move more elegantly than chimps. And when the bonobos stand upright, they look very human-like because they have these different body proportions." It's their social behaviour, however, that's the real pièce de résistance. "In terms of social behaviour, bonobos are almost the opposite of the chimpanzee in that they're relatively peaceful," de Waal remarks. "As far as we know, they don't have inter-group warfare going on, they eat a little bit of meat but much less than chimpanzees, and they're not great hunters." But here's where it gets interesting: "Male dominance is not there. It's rather the opposite where females dominate the show." And it doesn't stop there! "They seem to resolve a lot of their conflicts with sexual behaviour," he says. "If two bonobos have a fight, they may make up with a sexual reconciliation, which is typical for their species. So there's a lot of sexual activity that goes on that has more social meaning than reproductive meaning." Their sexuality also mirrors humans in a couple of other ways, too. "Bonobos have a greater variety of sexual postures," he reveals. "The bonobos can do it any way they want – and they can do it face to face also. So positionally – so to speak – they have a richer repertoire. And their sexual behaviour is not just male to female. It's also female-to-female and male-to-male and male-to-juvenile." In fact, they make the human sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies look tame. But what does this all mean for theories of human evolution? "The bonobo is almost a complete contrast to the chimpanzee, even though the two species are so closely related," de Waal explains. "So there's no reason, from the biological perspective, to suggest that the chimps are a more important model than the bonobo, because they're equidistant to us." As de Waal suggests, "it's possible that the common ancestor was not exactly like the chimpanzee, but it may have been something in between a chimp and a bonobo. That means maybe there was aggression and male dominance [as some theories suggest], but it's very well possible there were maybe lots of other tendencies that have not been emphasised so much in models of human evolution." …like the propensity for pleasureful sexual activity, for instance! http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/4451/BonobosLikeHumans.html Jeannie...a Bonobo is still a CHIMP..... a Pygmy Chimpanzee. The Bonobo is Just ONE of the MANY Different VARIATIONS ..... But STILL WITHIN... ITS...OWN... "KIND"..." In other words, the bobobo is not a WHOLE OTHER "KIND".... again, it is just a variation of the SAME "KIND". I am saying that "Kind" could simply be "Primate." We are Primates. So are Chimps. Well Jeannie....that is IMPOSSIBLE, acording to God's Word. According to God's Word, God created ALL the FISH of the Sea , and ALL the BIRDS of the Air , and ALL the ANIMALS ..... FIRST !!!!!!!! BEFORE God even Created MAN !!! So, according to God's Word, how then, can man and chimp be PRIMATES? And Jeannie..... not only did God create man AFTERWARDS, but God ALSO created man in HIS OWN IMAGE. Here..let's take a look at what the WORD says: ******** Genesis 1:20-28 (New King James Version) 20 Then God SAID, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God CREATED great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 Then God SAID, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature ACCORDING TO ITS KIND : cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS OWN KIND”; and it was so. 25 And God MADE the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS OWN KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS OWN KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS OWN KIND. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God SAID, “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE , ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS; LET THEM have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, OVER the birds of the air, and OVER the cattle, OVER all the earth and OVER every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God CREATED man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the IMAGE OF GOD God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, OVER the birds of the air, and OVER EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVES ON THE EARTH.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong. I've heard the same thing. How convienient. Sort of justifies the lack of demonstratable evidence to say it takes a few million years for this to happen. But hey - it's a fact you know. Just take our word for it. No wait... can't relly on human testimony. Now what. Sounds like a religion to me. The thing is Elijay, we have posted evidence after evidence, and each time you just brush it off, without actually looking at it. For instance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Also, the big difference between Religion and Science(and Evolution) is that religion is set-up for "just take my word for it"(i.e. Papal Infallibility, in layman's terms, if the Pope says god told him, you have to take it on faith as being true) In Science, you have peer review. Basically, you come up with a (testable) theory, it has to stand up to people trying to disprove it. Also, you have to keep in mind the Scientific definition of the word "theory", which, is basically, an idea that ties a group of facts together. Inkracer...about your article: ALL that is occurring there are mutations ....which is all still occurring WITHIN ITS OWN KIND. It is still BACTERIA!!!! In other words, the bacteria did not become something of an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT KIND!! It is still bacteria..still occurring within its own "KIND". And btw, creationist have NO argument about the mutations occuring.... because in this case, the mutations did not mutate into anything other than what it already was. So..that "opinion" stated at the end of the article , was just the author's "opinion" only. Does any of this help make things a bit more clearer now, Inkracer? You might want to read everything before you respond. The article isn't just some scientist's opinion on what they observed. Before a scientific article is written and published, the experiment undergoes a peer review. Before the article was written, other scientists tried to disprove the results, and couldn't. I will always trust the scientists that are actually working on trying to understand the world around us, more then someone who uses a book that is approaching 2000 yrs. old simply has a weapon against learning, and reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inkracer..I am not disproving the results.
I agree....the mutation happened. All I am saying is... the mutation did not mutate into SOMETHING OF A WHOLE DIFFERENT "KIND". YES...CHANGES TOOK PLACE..... BUT..... The CHANGES THAT TOOK PLACE.... STILL ONLY TOOK PLACE WITHIN ...ITS...OWN...KIND. See now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 03/14/09 07:13 AM
|
|
Notice:
How God Created ALL things AFTER.. ITS ..OWN.. KIND...... but.... WHEN IT CAME TO MAN...... God did NOT say He created man after its own kind (like God said before, of the rest of His creation)..... but INSTEAD.... GOD SAID SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT , WHEN HE CREATED OF MAN. GOD SAID, "LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE , ACCORDING TO OUR LIKENESS " . ONLY to MAN did God SAY THIS!!!!! (also notice: NOWHERE did God say , "Let us make CHIMP in Our Image ". )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Theshortelktonman
on
Sat 03/14/09 07:18 AM
|
|
When Santa Clause comes down from the north pole and smites the Easter Bunny, the great pumpkin shall be revealed as the tooth fairy. Then Jesus will resurrect and reveal himself to be the true buddha and mohamed will be so overwhelmed by awe he will fallow the true buddha to ragnarok to face Zues and Odin in the final war on earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Theshortelktonman
on
Sat 03/14/09 07:17 AM
|
|
When Santa Clause comes down from the north pole and smites the Easter Bunny, the great pumpkin shall be revealed as the tooth fairy. Then Jesus will resurrect and reveal himself to be the true buddha and mohamed will be so overwhelmed by awe he will fallow the true buddha to ragnarok to face Zues and Odin in the final war on earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Santa Clause comes down from the north pole and smites the Easter Bunny, the great pumpkin shall be revealed as the tooth fairy. Then Jesus will resurrect and reveal himself to be the true buddha and mohamed will be so overwhelmed by awe he will fallow the true buddha to ragnarok to face Zues and Odin in the final war on earth. Hey if I keep posting this crap does it make it true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/14/09 11:57 AM
|
|
Well Jeannie....that is IMPOSSIBLE, acording to God's Word. According to God's Word, God created ALL the FISH of the Sea , and ALL the BIRDS of the Air , and ALL the ANIMALS ..... FIRST !!!!!!!!drinker BEFORE God even Created MAN !!!flowerforyou So, according to God's Word, how then, can man and chimp be PRIMATES? Morning song, I don't want to be unkind here, but humans are considered "primates." and their DNA is 98% plus similar to chimps. It does not matter what you think "the word of God" says. And the Bible is NOT "God's word" it is a book written 2000 years ago by men. You will never learn anything 'real' until you stop worshiping a book. The Bible is not God and it is not "God's word." I know that my telling you this will of course, fall on deaf ears as usual, because you have completely closed yourself off to everything and any information except what you have been taught and programed to believe. If you want to believe these things that I (and most people) consider to be unreasonable and unprovable because it makes you feel better you will never be in touch with reality. If you want to take the words in that book as literal as you do and if you want to believe that they are "gods word" that is your choice, but don't state it to me as if that were a proven fact. It is not. So please don't insult my intelligence by thinking that I believe that nonsense. I am a seeker of truth and ... that is CLEARLY not truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeannie wrote: And the Bible is NOT "God's word" it is a book written 2000 years ago by men. You will never learn anything 'real' until you stop worshiping a book. The Bible is not God and it is not "God's word." I know that my telling you this will of course, fall on deaf ears as usual, because you have completely closed yourself off to everything and any information except what you have been taught and programed to believe. Jeannie speaks the truth MorningSong. How can you believe that the male chauvinist pigs who bought and sold their own daughters and wives could possible speak for God? That's just downright ignorant. It's an insult to the very concept of God, as well as to the rest of humanity who don't agree with such ignorance. How you can support that kind of ignorance is beyond me. And let's face it, the very book that you support demands that women do not speak out on religious matters, yet you completely ignore the idea that this might be "God's WORD". It's crystal clearly that you yourself reject the Bible and don't believe that it's the word of God. You have absolutely no belief whatsoever that what is stated in the Bible came from any God. Clearly you're just blinding proselytizing because you've convinced yourself that it's the "right thing to do", but you haven't truly considered what it is that you are actually supporting! And let's face it MorningSong, you don't know. You were trying to incite Nubby in another thread to be more assertive in his belief that Jesus is God. But that's precisely what Christians do! They encourage each other to LIE for Jesus! The truth is that you don't know who wrote the Bible or what their true agenga might have been. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are being unrealistic. What you believe, you believe on FAITH alone. Period. Personally I have absolutely no desire to believe that a bunch of male chuavinist pigs speak for our creator. Thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 03/14/09 03:52 PM
|
|
Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong. I've heard the same thing. How convienient. Sort of justifies the lack of demonstratable evidence to say it takes a few million years for this to happen. But hey - it's a fact you know. Just take our word for it. No wait... can't relly on human testimony. Now what. Sounds like a religion to me. The thing is Elijay, we have posted evidence after evidence, and each time you just brush it off, without actually looking at it. For instance: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html Also, the big difference between Religion and Science(and Evolution) is that religion is set-up for "just take my word for it"(i.e. Papal Infallibility, in layman's terms, if the Pope says god told him, you have to take it on faith as being true) In Science, you have peer review. Basically, you come up with a (testable) theory, it has to stand up to people trying to disprove it. Also, you have to keep in mind the Scientific definition of the word "theory", which, is basically, an idea that ties a group of facts together. Inkracer; You have shown interpretations and observations. These are the "Testimonies" of eyewitnesses to current events. Witnessing bacteria going though mutations is NOT evidence for man sharing a commoon ancestor with Apes. And let's leave religion out out this because RELIGION IS UNVERIFYABLE (and you can quote me on that). My point is - Evolution is unverifyable, and it's extrapolating claims. That - I'm afraid, is purely faith based - and you will not be able to demonstrate to me ANY evidence to the contrary. There has never been anyone who has - nor will there ever be anyone who will. And believe me - there have been billions of dollars spent attempting to verify this over the last 50 years alone - withZERO success. Get that. Not even a a one percent chance of doing this. Zilch. None. Rien. double O's. So how - without even one example of one type of animal tranforming into another in the wild - can you even attempt to claim that it is Fact? What are you basing your conclusion on other than conjecture? Don't send me to a U-tube presentation, I've seen them all and non of them offer evidence either. And making claims against Creationism is not evidence for Evolution. I don't need an Evolutionist to tell me that belief in Creationism is based on faith. That's what Christianity TEACHES! Of course it isn't going to have verifyable evidence. Only what is observed. I look at a tree and think God created it - you look at a tree and think otherwise. I don't know what you think it's origin was, because every time I ask you - you point me to someone else. As far as I know - you don't have an opinion that isn't someone elses. I'm waiting for "evidence" Inkracer - not conjecture and extrapolation. I'm waiting for someone to tell me what that fruit fly that evolved has now become. Other than a really messed up fruit fly. I don't take anything the Pope says as truth. He's just another guy - why would I think any Human is going to be giving me truth since christain prophecy ended with Revelation? The Pope just see's something in the bible the way he see's it. That's between him and God. It has nothing to do with me what-so-ever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Sat 03/14/09 03:53 PM
|
|
Well Eljay, the way I understand it, evolution does not happen overnight. I could be wrong. I've heard the same thing. How convienient. Sort of justifies the lack of demonstratable evidence to say it takes a few million years for this to happen. But hey - it's a fact you know. Just take our word for it. No wait... can't relly on human testimony. Now what. Sounds like a religion to me. I never said how long it takes. But you can see there are differences between these chimps compared to other chimps. Did you not read the descriptions? I don't study the scientific theory of evolution. I know very little about it. I know that it is just science. I am not threatened by it. It does not shake my spiritual life or my foundations of faith like it obviously seems to do to some some people who worship the Bible. It is the Bible you are defending Eljay, not God. Why don't you realize that? Besides, people have posted plenty of evidence, you just don't read it. I'm not defending the bible - I'm questioning Evolution. I only defend the bible when someone claims it says something it doesn't. Other than that - I don't feel it necessary, or my even being capable of convincing someone that it is evidentiary fact - no human can do that. I can demonstrate the logical reasoning I use to support why I think it's true, but I can't make anyone "believe" that logic, and despite how you may think it appears - I don't. I can only discuss what the bible itself says - and either it makes sense, or it doesn't. For me - it makes sense. To Abra - it doesn't. But I don't try to convince Abra that what he interprets is wrong, just when he's inaccurate with WHAT he is interpreting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Sat 03/14/09 03:54 PM
|
|
Ever WONDER WHY...... some folks are SO QUICK TO BELIEVE ..... that MAN shares a COMMON ANCESTOR with a CHIMP ..... BUT are SO VERY QUICK TO NOT BELIEVE .... THAT MAN WAS ACTUALLY CREATED IN GOD'S VERY IMAGE ? Ever WONDER WHY? Ever WONDER WHO ..... is this one....... BLINDING some folks eyes like that?? So they CANNOT SEE ? EVER WONDER ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Santa Clause comes down from the north pole and smites the Easter Bunny, the great pumpkin shall be revealed as the tooth fairy. Then Jesus will resurrect and reveal himself to be the true buddha and mohamed will be so overwhelmed by awe he will fallow the true buddha to ragnarok to face Zues and Odin in the final war on earth.  I agree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abra said to Morningsong:
The truth is that you don't know who wrote the Bible or what their true agenda might have been. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are being unrealistic. What you believe, you believe on FAITH alone. Period. It seems strange to me that Eljay freely admits that his belief is pure faith, and that is his reason for not having any real evidence for what or why he believes as he does. He believes on faith. He has no proof or evidence. I don't know why he chooses to believe as he does, but he at least admits that it is purely faith. And there is Morningsong who does not even join the conversation at all or debate anything. She simply makes statements as if they are the gospel truth and preaches like a songbird her well memorized script, all the while covering her ears to anything anyone else is telling her, except to reject it and respond with the appropriate sermon. I don't know why Eljay believes as he does. I don't know why some people think if they could just disprove evolution, then everyone would revert to ancient religious beliefs. Evolution and science are no threat to any of my beliefs. I don't agree with a lot of it but I am not threatened by it. I think evolution and creationism are the least of our problems when it comes to defining reality and were we came from. If a person does not want to believe in evolution then NOTHING can ever convince him. It's an on-going science that's all it is. It does not matter if you believe in it or not! If you are not interested in learning more about it, nobody is going to force you. So just forget about it. The length of this discussion on this subject is absurd. I think I'm done with this thread. |
|
|
|
|
