100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Creation vs. Evolution. - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If the best horses breed and the worst horses don't, won't the breed get better? If the smartest humans average one baby and the dumbest average six, won't the race get dumber? Idiocracy... funny movie! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What theory do you recommend ? 40% scientists are christian 15% are agnostic ? Survival of the fittest ? Well thats a given . Origin of species? Thats a lie it should of been called adaption of species . The fossile record ? Cambrian explosion ? which seems to back the creation account not evolutionary theory . Scientists cannot even agree on a theory , what is their is inconclusive ...   i like it when people that don't/can"t understand science try to explain something about it... like watching gilligan with a coconut... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Th3Dv8
on
Sat 01/10/15 08:43 PM
|
|
What theory do you recommend ? 40% scientists are christian 15% are agnostic ? not sure where 40% came from ??? 93 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most elite scientific organizations in the United States, do not believe in God. A broader description comes from the Pew Research Center, which reported in 2009 that 51 percent of scientists believe that God or some higher power exists, while 41 percent of scientists reject both of those concepts. Neither of these two statistics mentions Christianity... The 51% believe in a higher power or God. As an atheist-agnostic I understand this, much easier to believe in a higher power than in a god-man who's god-father immaculately inseminated a woman because he was so upset over a couple who ate a piece of fruit when a talking snake said not to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not sure what year the 93 percent comes from ' The National Academy of Sciences ' ? Last i hear it was 72.2 % as current ... Also to join the ' National Academy of Sciences ' means 'towing' the line , they also carry political weight , regardless statements from scientists are not necessarily statements of science ... On your 'attack' on christianity , have you heard of reptilians ? Annunaki , shadow shifters ? If Lucifer and his hoard can change forms as witnessed by ex-illuminati members (eye witnesses) to the Elites , raping children , skinning dogs alive and worshipping Lucifer and having actually being introduced to a three storey tall spirit who introduced himself as 'christ' but named Lucifer .... And these beings have infilitrated the top governments around the world including the white house , i doubt a talking snake to a naive eve early on in creation would be a hard sell ? Do some research on skull and bones , bohemian grove and the illuminati , they ALL worship satan and ex-members tell the same stories , they witnessed them taking the form of men ... This fits in exactly with the bible that says ' we are ruled not by the seen but unseen forces , spirits in dark places ' and it says ' we have a fight not against flesh and blood but the spirit world ' AND Satan walks amongst us ... Man is walking towards extinction and Satan is at the helm , if he cannot rule us succesfully he wants us gone becuase he knows his time is short and will be destroyed . Despite mans 'good' intentions we keep sliding further in destruction and you havent figured out why yet ? Read the bible match it up with government and the jigsaw starts to get clearer . Talking snakes or Life from the non-living ? I,d take the odds that its more likely you,ll see a snake speak than life starting from nothing , i,d like to see the actual odds on that ? Satan is called , the Devil , the great Dragon the 'original serpent' and also a beutifull angel . Dont dismiss all things that you know nothing about . If there is a creator there most certainly can be talking snakes , Dragons in folklore=Dinosaurs , many many images / carvings around the world with Dinosaur and man living together , even a carving of a man riding a tricerotops .... Science has and was an alternative to the allways held creation account ... Look at some things . Worldwide extinction by asteroid or a worldwide flood or did an asteroid cause a worldwide flood ? Raining down its ocean for 40 days ? Our apendix ? science says we dont need it now becuase we no longer live in caves and eat mainly veg , The bible says prior to the flood everything was vegetarian hence we need an apendix ? Point is Science by its definition isnt sticking to it own rule of observbsble testable , repeatable ? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
about them snakes though...
that was specifically referring to all "humans" character traits... as all humans are metaphorically considered to be as some of ALL animals... the serpent, able to "eat others", or "bite", as the snake does... the "dove", as able to make love not war... as the bee, able to sting others... same as the "dragon", able to breath fire and brimstone upon others... or give another human a tongue lashing... some have put maniacal definitions to simple child like allegories... and use that to prove science is evil... there are people with nefarious agenda in science and religions, both using data to gain their own self agenda's... science and true truer truest spiritual meanings of love have never been in conflict. it has just been there wasn't much love in the people who read such things... smiles |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tamitateo
on
Sat 01/10/15 09:35 PM
|
|
Why is it that the scientific mind is always accused of not believing in god, when it is religion that we sorry I have a problem with, after all, religion was created by man, not god.
Religion just another mans Mythology. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that the scientific mind is always accused of not believing in god, when it is religion that we sorry I have a problem with, after all, religion was created by man, not god. Religion just another mans Mythology. Well alot of Scientsits do beleive in god , we have a scientist attend my church and i have a doctor whos a christian ... As for all religions being right ? We were all made in GODS image so there is some similarity in all but not all are true ... Jesus is the only one who claimed to be GOD ' " In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god ...and the word became flesh " He Became man so he could judge us as we are , from a humans perspective . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution has science to support its ideas, creation would be an important instrument in the process of evolution but nothing more. If we were created then the form that did the creating would have to exist as a form of evolution... I believe your statement is correct and it does. Sometimes the big picture is actually the small picture we need to be looking at. A chemist once told me that I need to look at the small picture not the big picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution has science to support its ideas, creation would be an important instrument in the process of evolution but nothing more. If we were created then the form that did the creating would have to exist as a form of evolution... I believe your statement is correct and it does. Sometimes the big picture is actually the small picture we need to be looking at. A chemist once told me that I need to look at the small picture not the big picture. What usually works best is to look at the whole picture. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution has science to support its ideas, creation would be an important instrument in the process of evolution but nothing more. If we were created then the form that did the creating would have to exist as a form of evolution... I believe your statement is correct and it does. Sometimes the big picture is actually the small picture we need to be looking at. A chemist once told me that I need to look at the small picture not the big picture. What usually works best is to look at the whole picture.  ....This works well in 'all' things ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that the scientific mind is always accused of not believing in god, when it is religion that we sorry I have a problem with, after all, religion was created by man, not god. Religion just another mans Mythology. Well alot of Scientsits do beleive in god , we have a scientist attend my church and i have a doctor whos a christian ... As for all religions being right ? We were all made in GODS image so there is some similarity in all but not all are true ... Jesus is the only one who claimed to be GOD ' " In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god ...and the word became flesh " He Became man so he could judge us as we are , from a humans perspective .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blessed Sunday's to all...
when faith exceeds accuracy it becomes lunacy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blessed Sunday's to all... when faith exceeds accuracy it becomes lunacy. Morning and thank you, I think they all missed my point, sigh oh well God knows I believe he is there 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"they" are all about...
keeping the balance... blinding the self declared wise to fall into ditches to teach them the importance of self accuracy in all things. for did some think the "god parents" were actually only 'off-site parents'... for yea, they walk amongst us transfiguring into any size, shape and look, fe or male, child or adult, pauper or rich... just as some declare the "bad satanists" do... some... will know... in the end, the new beginnings, all will know... some know how to tell the difference in words, to "know"... for is was always said, ye shall know not by face first, but rather by words. for in the beginnings, the genesis, were the "words"... peace&smiles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is actually simple math- the difference between an animate carbon atom and an inanimate carbon aton is the ability to absorb outside heat/light/energy and then distribute it. The more this is done the more they will organize/evolute to do so. Hence life from non-life. As first proposed by the ancient Greeks and mathematically demonstrated at MIT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Th3Dv8
on
Tue 01/20/15 05:43 AM
|
|
it is actually simple math- the difference between an animate carbon atom and an inanimate carbon aton is the ability to absorb outside heat/light/energy and then distribute it. The more this is done the more they will organize/evolute to do so. Hence life from non-life. As first proposed by the ancient Greeks and mathematically demonstrated at MIT You need the Nobel prize in physics " Hence life from non-life " It is a massive jump into ( life from non-life ) from amino acids / protiens to cells ? You,ve just skipped ' impossible ' odds , the greeks believed fly's came from decaying meet . There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J.B.S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. Hypothesis is a fact
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Woolly Mysticism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chance couldnt have wired the array of arteries in Darwin's body The earliest life existed ~3 Ga's ago. You'd be surprised by the mere accidents that can happen. Think about flipping 1000 coins and getting 1000 heads. Unlikely to happen, but give it enough time and it will happen. Hell, life and it's creation is itself an accident. Especially life on a planet that is actually able to support it no less. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chance couldnt have wired the array of arteries in Darwin's body The earliest life existed ~3 Ga's ago. You'd be surprised by the mere accidents that can happen. Think about flipping 1000 coins and getting 1000 heads. Unlikely to happen, but give it enough time and it will happen. Hell, life and it's creation is itself an accident. Especially life on a planet that is actually able to support it no less. not to mention the billions (maybe trillions) life has had to "wire" the array on arteries in all animals... i say trillions because i think life started somewhere else, and and all cells/DNA has memory in in.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to say. Afterall, Earth already has what it takes to produce the basic units of life. I'm not saying your theory isn't possible, however Earth doesn't need any outside help to create life...theoretically speaking. In fact our planet probably had multiple "origins" of life, it's just that ours stuck around.
As for memory in DNA...are you referring to behavioral evolution? I'm not sure if you really need trillions of years to develop something like that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to say. Afterall, Earth already has what it takes to produce the basic units of life. I'm not saying your theory isn't possible, however Earth doesn't need any outside help to create life...theoretically speaking. In fact our planet probably had multiple "origins" of life, it's just that ours stuck around. As for memory in DNA...are you referring to behavioral evolution? I'm not sure if you really need trillions of years to develop something like that. |
|
|
|
|
