24 Sep 07
faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these is love.
hope ends in fruition, faith ends in sight, but love is eternal, and extends beyond the grave.
not knowing is the key to faith. if we "knew" everything about God and His existence, then it would not require faith. science and religion are, and should be always kept seperate. a keen intellect can hold 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints at the same time, and believe them both to be true.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerI'm not very intelligent, then. Or maybe I know too much... or I think i know... I hope Sporting will win the champions league, though I don't have much faith in it...
faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these is love.
hope ends in fruition, faith ends in sight, but love is eternal, and extends beyond the grave.
not knowing is the key to faith. if we "knew" everything about God and His existence, then it would not require faith. science and religion are, and should be always kept seperate. a keen intellect can hold 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints at the same time, and believe them both to be true.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadowhen Sporting wins, hope has reached fruition, and faith will become past tense as knoweldge replaces it.
I'm not very intelligent, then. Or maybe I know too much... or I think i know... I hope Sporting will win the champions league, though I don't have much faith in it...
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerYou mean a keen intellect can master Orwellian doublethink, right?
faith, hope, and love, the greatest of these is love.
hope ends in fruition, faith ends in sight, but love is eternal, and extends beyond the grave.
not knowing is the key to faith. if we "knew" everything about God and His existence, then it would not require faith. science and religion are, and should be always kept seperate. a keen intellect can hold 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints at the same time, and believe them both to be true.
Why does God want us to seek ignorance?
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoI understand the scientific process just fine, thank you. The problem I have is when Evolution is taught as scietific fact, not theory. It seems science is to afraid to admit there is a possibility of a creator that made all we see in 6 days.
Of course there are holes and pieces missing in the puzzle. At least we are trying to find those pieces, instead of someone tell you how to puzzle is without ever seeing it and you believe it.
Do you know the meaning of "hypothesis", "theory", "assumption" ? Of course you don't... you can jump directly to "Truth".
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. What irritates me is when people disregard scientific theories that support a creation model.
God made us to test him and see his faithfullness to us. But we are also supposed to recognize his awesomeness as a creator.
24 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by freightdog37You didn't even bother to edit out irrelevant parts of the copy-paste?
Taken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
The sources of information can be found at that link.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’
However arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)
Keep trying.
However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis.
No, that's not true.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodveg/474449922/
Your copy-paste has been shown to be false early on. Clearly the lack of editing out the first line shows you made very little effort in this post, so I'll just dismiss your source as untrustworthy.
Have any others?
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI found everything I posted to be relevant and no editing necessary. Great you found a picture of a whale pelvis, now make it dissappear. The article didn't say that they didn't have them.
You didn't even bother to edit out irrelevant parts of the copy-paste?
[b]However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis.
No, that's not true.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hollywoodveg/474449922/
Your copy-paste has been shown to be false early on. Clearly the ...[text shortened]... e effort in this post, so I'll just dismiss your source as untrustworthy.
Have any others?[/b]
How has this shown to be false early on. There is no reason to consider the source untrustworthy. By reading other posts you have wrote it seems you like to put words in peoples mouths and try to turn things around to benefit your point of view.
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37If evolution was taught to you as a scientific fact, you had a lousy teacher. Science is not afraid to study different theories, and admited the possibility of 6 days. Simply it was discredited when we looked at the evidences provided by nature (reality).
I understand the scientific process just fine, thank you. The problem I have is when Evolution is taught as scietific fact, not theory. It seems science is to afraid to admit there is a possibility of a creator that made all we see in 6 days.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. What irritates me is when people disregard scientific theories t ...[text shortened]... ee his faithfullness to us. But we are also supposed to recognize his awesomeness as a creator.
Scientific theories supporting creation have been considered, very deeply, and are SO full of errors and inconsistencies that are simply relegated to 3rd or 4th level.
No one is against creation. Scientists are not against religion. It simply is not plausible as many hundreds of others theories are not plausible as well.
Don't you think it's a bit strange the ONLY people to support creationism to be CHRISTIANS? Don't you think there should be some independent scientists supporting this claim were it to be true?
24 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoI think scientists who have looked at the evidence of creation, and been converted to Christianity by the scientific evidence of creation is pretty profound. I would say that was independent enough.
If evolution was taught to you as a scientific fact, you had a lousy teacher. Science is not afraid to study different theories, and admited the possibility of 6 days. Simply it was discredited when we looked at the evidences provided by nature (reality).
Scientific theories supporting creation have been considered, very deeply, and are SO full of errors a ...[text shortened]... u think there should be some independent scientists supporting this claim were it to be true?
Let's take one inconsistency and analyze it. I would like to see them for my own knowledge. I believe the laws of nature uphold more evidence of creation rather than evolution. Here is one example.
If the earth all started from single molecules and expanded from there, including plants and animals. How did much of the plant life survive millions of years with out certain insects (like bees) to help the process of pollinaton?
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37wow... calm...
I think scientists who have looked at the evidence of creation, and been converted to Christianity by the scientific evidence of creation is pretty profound. I would say that was independent enough.
Let's take one inconsistency and analyze it. I would like to see them for my own knowledge. I believe the laws of nature uphold more evidence of creat ...[text shortened]... rvive millions of years with out certain insects (like bees) to help the process of pollinaton?
I think scientists who have looked at the evidence of creation, and been converted to Christianity by the scientific evidence of creation is pretty profound. I would say that was independent enough.
You think. That never happened, to my knowledge. An atheist scientist who converted to christianity because he found evidence in nature to support the bible? That's your dream.
You believe laws of nature uphold more evidence to creation????? In what planet do you live??? If that was true, independent scientists would support creation, don't you think?
"earth all started from single molecules and expanded from there"
It's nothing like that... I suppose you want to say "life all started from single molecules and expanded from there" ?
Plant life doesn't need insects to polinize... Wind is enough. Insects only help to do it. This can make sense to a child.
I can't believe someone is actually arguing creationism with scientific evidence... But please post all your questions, I'll be glad to debate them.
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoMany of the scientists that I have posted on earlier came to the realization this way. I think that many of the issues you and I are talking about can be explained fron my point of view in this article.
wow... calm...
[b]I think scientists who have looked at the evidence of creation, and been converted to Christianity by the scientific evidence of creation is pretty profound. I would say that was independent enough.
You think. That never happened, to my knowledge. An atheist scientist who converted to christianity because he found evidence in n ...[text shortened]... cientific evidence... But please post all your questions, I'll be glad to debate them.[/b]
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
Concerning the bee situation I was asking, but like I said before not all vegetation can reproduce on its own. Check out this excerpt from this site.
http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/insects/ahb/inf10.html
Did you ever wonder where apples come from or how an apple tree makes apples? Actually, apples start as flowers on the apple tree. Without the help of bees though, the flowers would bloom and then wither and drop without ever having a chance to become an apple. For a flower to become an apple, the pollen that is produced by the flowers on one apple tree must be transferred to the flowers on another tree. The pollen is moved between trees by bees who visit the flowers to collect nectar and pollen. Moving pollen between flowers is called cross-pollination.
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37So, God created humankind with the intent of failing? This is what you are proposing. Given that
God made us to test him and see his faithfullness to us. But we are also supposed to recognize his awesomeness as a creator.
the majority of individuals in the world today disbelieve the Hebrew account of Creation as a literal
fact (either because they are atheists, non-Judeo-Christians, or Judeo-Christians who do not agree
with a literal reading of the text), you're simply saying that God's capacity as a Creator is so short-sighted
that a majority of people would reject His account in just 2500 years after its being written down.
Wow.
Nemesio
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37Please, clarify for me - how is this relevant?
I found everything I posted to be relevant and no editing necessary. Great you found a picture of a whale pelvis, now make it dissappear. The article didn't say that they didn't have them.
How has this shown to be false early on. There is no reason to consider the source untrustworthy. By reading other posts you have wrote it seems you like to put words in peoples mouths and try to turn things around to benefit your point of view.
The sources of information can be found at that link.
The article didn't say that they didn't have them.
Yes, it did. Did you even read it?
However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis.
25 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by freightdog37There were other methods of pollination. There still are. Conifers just drop their pollen into the wind for example.
I think scientists who have looked at the evidence of creation, and been converted to Christianity by the scientific evidence of creation is pretty profound. I would say that was independent enough.
Let's take one inconsistency and analyze it. I would like to see them for my own knowledge. I believe the laws of nature uphold more evidence of creat ...[text shortened]... rvive millions of years with out certain insects (like bees) to help the process of pollinaton?
I bet if we look at the fossile record we won't find any flowers dated before a certain date, but we will find leaves and such that date older than that.
25 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37You are supposing the scientists did so. I suppose they were already Christians. Let's ask them.
Many of the scientists that I have posted on earlier came to the realization this way. I think that many of the issues you and I are talking about can be explained fron my point of view in this article.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
Concerning the bee situation I was asking, but like I said before not all vegetati ...[text shortened]... flowers to collect nectar and pollen. Moving pollen between flowers is called cross-pollination.
Now for every one of your creationist scientist there are 100 CHRISTIAN evolution scientists... and 10 000 independent scientists. Do you think they are in a lobby against creation? NO, they are not. They are independent, just trying to find the truth in everyday reality.
Now there's a huge lobby to convince people that the bible is scientificaly correct. Scientific language is used, and it sounds convincing for the non-educated mind. Yet, it's full of errors. It sounds plausible in some arguments, others are just stupid, but MOST of them are easily comproved to be completely wrong.
I don't see anything relevant in the 1st link you sent me except christians need the bible to make their assumptions. The arguments used are philosophical, sometimes stupid.
About the apples: there were no apple trees (or flowers) some million of years ago. They evolved when a more efficient pollinization process appeared (insects). Did you ever wonder this? It's quite simple to explain on evolution theory.
I await for the points where I actually have to make use of more advanced knowledge in science. Tell me about that evidence for creation. That linked showed nothing except that scientists must hear the points of creationists. I'm listening.