|
Post by pippin on Sept 9, 2003 21:46:35 GMT -5
SteveC
I rarely read your posts. Evolution is a topic I do believe in random atoms, matter whatever do not change the Word of God.
In His Love ysic pippin
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 10, 2003 4:26:55 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, I once believed in 'evolution'. Even read a book on it. It didn't impress me at all. When I became a Christian, God made me aware that it was a false belief. I don't know how to link another Website to a Post, but I would recommend that you take a look at the following Website: www.answersingenesis.org I have never believed in the 'Big Bang'. Can an explosion glorify God? Look at the beauty that exists in His creation. Is it just the result of some pkmtyolmive explosion of energy? I don't buy it. Scientists will come up with any theory to explain God out of existence. But there are scientists who believe in God and don't believe in 'evolution', and probably don't believe in the 'Big Bang' either....... Your Brother in Christ, Andy. ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ben johnson on Sept 10, 2003 5:03:29 GMT -5
Four. PLASMA is the "fourth state". This is precisely the theory of Creation. Think of "empty space" as being FILLED with "virtual particles"; the act of pulling a "negative particle" and a "positive particle" from "virtual space" into "real", presents a net energy gain to REAL, of ZERO (positive plus negative equals zero). Interstellar travel is an extrapolation of this principle; pull a "virtual wormholle" from "space-time-foam", and inflate it into a usable aperture. Not an improbable concept; essentially, a transmitting antenna is surrounded by "virtual photons" --- the signal is inputted, which excites the electrons and pops the "virtual" into the "real"... One with conversant knowledge of science can shred the teacher's presentation. I sometimes call entrants for our local paper's editorial page --- fascinating conversations have resulted. One public school teacher recounted how he was forced to take "continuing education", one cpkmtyoll of which was EVOLUTION. But he did not simply sit still. He kept raising his hand, saying: "Actually, professor, isn't that REALLY saying..." The final straw was when the instructor presented Haeckel's embryo pictures, and remarked: "We're lucky to still have these drawings." At this point the public-school-teacher said, "Excuse me, professor, wasn't Haeckel JAILED for FRAUD? And those very drawings really bear NO RESEMBLENCE to ACTUAL emryos, do they? Didn't Haeckel FAKE the drawings to promote his own bias?" The professer threw down his chalk and stormed out of the room.My "teacher-friend" is if course absolutely right; Ernst Haeckel simply drew Human embryos and claimed they were animals.... www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp
|
|
|
Post by Deborah4God on Sept 10, 2003 7:24:31 GMT -5
Could the Big Bang "thingy" happen again? And why hasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 10, 2003 10:45:46 GMT -5
Ben,
If God created everything out of absolutely nothing, then maybe all of us really are God, i.e. of the substance of God. And maybe magicians really can pull rabbits out of empty hats, and maybe this isn't the only reality, and maybe.......
Ouch, my brain hurts! But that's only imaginary. And they do say "pain only exists in the mind." And who I wonder are 'they'? Do 'they' exist or are 'they' only phantoms of the imagination? Sorry, just in a funny mood.......
Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
P.S: I'm only joking, not ready for the 'funny farm' - yet....
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Sept 10, 2003 12:18:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 10, 2003 16:22:55 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "I once believed in 'evolution'."That is where you and I differ. I do not, nor have I ever "believed" in evolution, I simply acknowledge it to be the best explanation for the observed evidence. Evolutionary theory is a scientific principle, not a philosophy or religion to be believed in. Regarding Answers in Genesis, the authors of the site are certainly not engaged in science of any kind, but are instead practicing religion. In science, one begins with the data and forms a theory to describe them. The authors of Answers in Genesis do just the opposite, necessitating that the evidence is only "properly understood" when it conforms to the conclusion that they have preordained to be true. Their words may proclaim them to be scientific, but their methods prove them to be just the opposite. "I have never believed in the 'Big Bang'. Can an explosion glorify God?"First off, to describe the Big Bang as an "explosion" is inaccurate. Secondly, if the Big Bang was God's intended means of creating, why would that not be glorifying to God? "Scientists will come up with any theory to explain God out of existence."On the contrary, science is wholly incapable of explaining God out of existence, only religion can do that. Once again, science deals only with the natural, never with the supernatural. "But there are scientists who believe in God and don't believe in 'evolution', and probably don't believe in the 'Big Bang' either"Yes, there are, but such scientists represent only a fraction of a percent of the scientific community. Ben johnson - "One with conversant knowledge of science can shred the teacher's presentation [of evolutionary theory]."If you feel that you have the evidence to do so, by all means, let's see it. I've been on these threads since I came to the old board, and nobody has been able to do it yet. This would seem to indicate that it is not so easy as you claim. "Didn't Haeckel FAKE the drawings to promote his own bias?"While Haeckel's drawings have long been recognized by the scientific community as fraudulent, it is important to recognize that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid before Haeckel published his illustrations. The validity of evolutionary theory in no way is dependent upon the validity of the illustrations. However, while bearing little resemblance to Haeckel's illustrations, it is important to recognize that vertebrate embryos actually do briefly possess gills and a tail. This is in no way to claim that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," in other words, that our embryos pkmtyolp through our previous evolutionary stages; but it does serve to illustrate that we are descended from organisms that possessed such organs. While Fraud Discovered accurately presents Haeckel's drawings as fraudulent, the remainder of the article grossly represents the current scientific model. I2AM4GOD and Ben johnson, instead of continuing on about why you think evolutionary theory is inaccurate, why don't you try presenting some evidence that actually contradicts evolutionary theory, or supports a different model? Deborah4God - "Could the Big Bang 'thingy' happen again? And why hasn't it?"The Big Bang began when all matter in the universe was compressed into a single point called a singularity; without that condition existing again, such an event could not occur again. MorningStar - "Well, from what I remember (its been a while), a theory holds that the universe is expanding. I've always thought it might reach a point where it snaps back. (Think of a rubber band)"While the universe is certainly known to be expanding, there remains some debate as to whether that expansion is sufficient to overcome the gravitational force of the universe. If the universe continues to expand, overcoming that gravitational force, the ultimate fate of the universe many billions of years down the road will be a "heat death." However, should the gravitational force of the universe overcome that rate of expansion, the universe will indeed reach a maximum size, then collapse in what has been dubbed a "Big Crunch."
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Sept 10, 2003 17:08:10 GMT -5
While the universe is certainly known to be expanding, there remains some debate as to whether that expansion is sufficient to overcome the gravitational force of the universe. If the universe continues to expand, overcoming that gravitational force, the ultimate fate of the universe many billions of years down the road will be a "heat death." However, should the gravitational force of the universe overcome that rate of expansion, the universe will indeed reach a maximum size, then collapse in what has been dubbed a "Big Crunch." I had a dream about that once...I remember standing in the backyard of my parent's house. I looked up at the sky and saw a funnel, and it looked like the TV does when reception is out (anyone remember those days?) - you know, red, green, blue fuzz....anyways, I remember hearing a snap sound and that was it. When I woke up (camly in the morning), I had this wierd thought that I had just witnessed the end of a world. Freaky stuff. Anyways, thanks for the post, at least I know I'm not that out of it. All this computer stuff, I forget how much I used to like to study Astronomy and Physics. Peace
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 11, 2003 6:03:22 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, If the theory of 'evolution' is true, why haven't the scientists been able to find the famous 'missing link' that is supposed to 'prove' that humans and apes have a 'common ancestor'? And why is it that scientists aren't unanimously agreed that 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' occurred? By the way, a 'Big Bang' suggests a large explosion. If the evidence was all there, they would be in full agreement and speak with one voice. The fact is, there are scientists who are hostile to religion and who are wholly intent on doing away with the idea that God exists.......Now I don't know whether you are a Christian or not, but I have my doubts, and while the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' continue to be nothing more than that, I for one am all in favour of time being devoted to teaching both 'evolution' and 'creationist science' in schools. Theory should never be taught as though it were fact. To do so is morally unacceptable and can be cpkmtyolled as brain-washing. Children should be encouraged to question and be critical of what they are taught. The Website called 'answersingenesis' has been intelligently put together, and if you have any queries about the conclusions they reach about the various subjects they cover, then I suggest that you E-Mail them and have a go at disproving what they are saying. Don't forget to present to them your 'infallible knowledge' for the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang'. And please, keep us all informed of your progress....... Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Sept 11, 2003 6:22:52 GMT -5
The fact is, there are scientists who are hostile to religion and who are wholly intent on doing away with the idea that God exists. Theory should never be taught as though it were fact. To do so is morally unacceptable and can be cpkmtyolled as brain-washing. Children should be encouraged to question and be critical of what they are taught. There are also Christians hostile to science wholly intent on doing away with reason and logic. As far as "theory" goes, how is it that your beliefs as to how everything came to be are more valid than the "theories" that have tons of proof behind them? Science is totally about "questioning" and "being critical". Science would not exist if it weren't for these two things. The Bible comprises a set of beliefs. You cannot prove the creation story, nor will it ever be proven. It is your BELIEF that it occured. Science is striving to understand the universe as it has been presented to us. Science is all about the search for God - not the disproving of God. As of now, evolution and the Big Bang are the best explanations of what is being seen. That doesn't mean that they will always be the best explainations since new information is always coming to light. I have no problem with teaching the creation story in schools. It has no place in a science cpkmtyoll, however. It should be taught as literature. If you want to teach your kids the story as being what happened, then feel free to do so. That's what evenings and weekends are for.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 11, 2003 6:48:00 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "If the theory of 'evolution' is true, why haven't the scientists been able to find the famous 'missing link' that is supposed to 'prove' that humans and apes have a 'common ancestor'?"Such links are anything but missing, hundreds of examples of human ancestors demonstrating our common ancestry with apes are known. For examples, please see Fossil Hominids. "And why is it that scientists aren't unanimously agreed that 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' occurred?"Because some scientists are determined to interpret the evidence in order to match a literal interpretation of the Creation parable. However, while the scientific community is not unanimous on the subject, scientists who do not recognize the validity of evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory account for only a fraction of a percent of the scientific community. "By the way, a 'Big Bang' suggests a large explosion."And the name Chicago White Sox suggests that the team wears white socks, when in fact they wear black. You are reading too much into the name of the theory, and ignoring the evidence that supports it. "If the evidence was all there, they would be in full agreement and speak with one voice."The evidence is all there, and for all intents and purposes, the scientific community does speak with one voice regarding both theories. Achieving unanimity over such a large population is nearly always an impossibility; for example, there are still individuals who are not convinced of the fact that the world is round. "The fact is, there are scientists who are hostile to religion and who are wholly intent on doing away with the idea that God exists"Yes there are, as there are people in every branch of employment who are. However, such individuals cannot achieve such an end scientifically, as science is incapable of making statements regarding God's existence. "Now I don't know whether you are a Christian or not, but I have my doubts"First off, I am a Christian. Second, what evidence has caused you to doubt that? Third, even if I were not a Christian, how would that be in any way relevant to the validity of evolutionary theory or the Big Bang Theory? "and while the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' continue to be nothing more than that"That you refer to evolutionary theory and the Big Bang Theory as "nothing more" than theories suggests that you are working with an incorrect definition of what a theory actually is. "I for one am all in favour of time being devoted to teaching both 'evolution' and 'creationist science' in schools."First off, "creationist science" is an oxymoron. Secondly, which version of Creation would you have taught in the schools? Hindu Creation? Apache Creation? If we were to devote time in a science cpkmtyoll to teaching every creation myth known, there would not be any time left over to actually teach science. Finally, regardless of your feelings on the matter, the Supreme Court has consistently (and correctly) ruled that creation cannot be taught in science cpkmtyolles of public schools. "Theory should never be taught as though it were fact."Yep, I was right about you working with an incorrect definition of what a theory is. Theories and facts are wholly separate things. Theories do not become facts, theories are statements which describe facts. That species arise from pre-existing species is a fact, demonstrated by the evidence. Evolutionary theory is the statement which describes the complete body of these facts. "Children should be encouraged to question and be critical of what they are taught."Of course. At the same time, however they should also be shown the theories which are recognized by the scientific community as accurate, as well as the evidence supporting those theories. Evolutionary theory is supported by over a hundred fifty years of evidence, the work of tens of thousands of individuals, and has been demonstrated as valid in millions of pages of scientific publications. Its validity has not been a legitimate question to the scientific community for over a century; while we should certainly encourage our students to be critical of information, we should also let them know when a theory is in question and when it is not. "The Website called 'answersingenesis' has been intelligently put together"While the site itself may have been, the conclusions posted on it certainly have not. "Don't forget to present to them your 'infallible knowledge' for the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang'."I have never claimed infallibility regarding either the scientific community or myself. At the same time, however, when a theory has withstood a hundred years of the most intense scientific scrutiny without contradicting a single observation, there is no plausible reason for doubting its validity. Once again, instead of continuing to make unsupported claims that evolutionary theory is in any way invalid, why don't you try actually presenting some evidence to that effect? So far, you have completely failed to do so. --BDT
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 11, 2003 8:18:04 GMT -5
Here's where I turn heretic. Why do we demand the logically impossible of God? To create something from nothing? Why not allow God to take a piece of Godself and let that life explode into our realm of perception. Like we might take a lock of hair and fashion something out of it.
Our realm of perception, that small window of the electromagnetic spectrum we otherwise call "creation" is only a tiny piece of reality. And it is all pretty much what we call energy, isn't it? Matter is energy moving so fast that it looks solid to us. And nobody really knows what energy is.
That is why I like the oneness of Eastern religions. OK so someone here will accuse me of perpetuating Satan's lie that we are God or like God. There is a big difference between a lock of hair and a personality. being part of God is not the same as being God. Even Jesus speaks of Oneness but we usually take that figuratively.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Sept 11, 2003 8:18:26 GMT -5
Why is it that not all Christians can agree on the laws of Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 11, 2003 11:53:16 GMT -5
Pietro,
Being a part of God IS the same as being God?
Andy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 11, 2003 13:03:02 GMT -5
Traffic Demon & Heathen 76,
Theories don't describe facts entirely. They remain theories until all the facts become available to either prove or disprove them. Theories are partly fact-based and partly guess-work at best. And if the term 'Big Bang' does not suggest a large explosion, it's an erroneous and misleading term to use. And again it is wrong to teach a theory in schools as though it were fact. And I'm sorry, but I cannot accept the illogical suggestion that we somehow share a 'common ancestor' with the ape. Humans and apes are two totally different species. Humans, for example, walk upright on two legs, apes don't. They walk on all four limbs. The whole idea behind the theory of evolution is that it's about the 'survival of the fittest'. It's about the supposed change, or transition, of one species into another. At what point did the 'great ape' actually become us? Was there a transitional species in-between which incorporated features of both? Has it been scientifically proven? The Bible says that Man was created in the "image of God". And Man alone. Not the apes, or the reptiles, or the birds. Do you accept the authority of the Word of God concerning this? The Christian does. Theories are proven, theories are disproven. Theories themselves can 'evolve'. The Bible remains the same and it has never been proved wrong about anything. I'm neither anti-science, nor anti-reason/anti-logic. Any Christian who isn't that way inclined I would regard as not having much sense. Indeed, I regard science as important. And God feels the same way too! If it wasn't for some branches of science, such as medical science, we wouldn't enjoy the good standard of living that we do. I've yet to see how evolutionary science and the 'Big Bang' theory can possibly benefit mankind. I'm sure the money could be better spent.
Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|