Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
I'm not going to directly link to the sites I've been sharing. Obviously I'm not doing this correctly. Here are all of the sites I've seen, read and some I have comparatively researched:
http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life.htm and part 2, http://www.allaboutscience.org/origin-of-life-2.htm http://www.AllAboutScience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm http://www.AllAboutScience.org/Charles-darwin.htm http://www.AllAboutCreation.org/human-evolution.htm
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/common/aboutus.htm Please read, as I also believe that Jesus warned us about organized religion. If you must label me please call me a protestant Christian.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin- was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html http://darwin-online.org.uk/life10b.html and the only diagram: http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1859 _Origin_F373/1859_Origin_F373_fig02.jpg
Before I start clarifying things, how about we all just drop the links for now? If we cannot get all of them to work, how about just the majority and leave it at that; it is deathly clogging up the forums.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/
Chandler, if you want a say in this discussion, please add your own personal opinion about this matter, instead of a lone link. You cannot follow a link that you probably Googled like a sheep and expect your own personal thoughts to be the same. It's not rational :-/
Freak, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to say the what scientists are producing in a test tube must be controlled in order to exist, they aren't "stand alone" examples of lifes origin. Check this out:
Of course they have to
What scientists test are always a controlled experiment, something that is unaffected and fully constant in the conducted research. Then, they add variables, the experiment with an added twist to the mix, so see if these variables can produce another condition that may alter/bolster the theories' outcomes. They don't have to be test tubes, beakers, or inside labs either. They can be controlled environments as well.
Think of why genetics and evolution is going so well. Earth DOES hold species of organisms with a supremely-fast gestation period. These scientists basically spawn large amounts of small creatures to be tested in different environments with different conditions for survival.
The results of one test finished with the title "Rats and cats in barns".
This scenario explains that there are a generous number of mice of different genetic backgrounds in a barn. The farmer notices the large number of mice and sends his cat after them and closes the barn door. The inside of the barn is currently painted brown. This condition is: those that stick out like a sore thumb will be easier to spot and prey upon. Those that blend in with the environment will survive better. Essentially, all the white mice were taken out, but the brown and black mice were spared, because they were harder to spot by the cats. Different scenario: Farmer paints his house white. This means that the previous condition to where the black and brown mice were at home were suddenly thrust into an unfavorable environment! The cats spotted them easily and took out many of these mice. However, there were some that survived. Those that still carried the gene for white fur passed on their traits to their young, and their young (after like, 4 or 5 generations which was about a few weeks) was born with white fur. These mice adapted to their surroundings by birth and could survive much better than their black counterparts. They could survive and reproduce more than those that couldn't survive. So naturally, the white mice population grew immensely, while the black mice population dropped, because the barn's color was white.
Chandler, if you want a say in this discussion, please add your own personal opinion about this matter, instead of a lone link. You cannot follow a link that you probably Googled like a sheep and expect your own personal thoughts to be the same. It's not rational :-/
He probably got it from wajor considering that's the home page of the ten page spread he posted.
Oh and while I recommend Christians to stay away from sites like bibalearcheology and allbutscience.org I do recommend atheists going to see these sites. It will give you an idea of what kind of bs might get thrown at you next.
On the subject of these sites they make me wonder. Is there anything in the Bible about not lying? Because if there is, the people who make these sites are in a world of sin....
Speaking of sin and evolution why do Christians find it okay to think of themselves and others as unworthy vile sinners, but saying you descended from a primate is going to far?
Speaking of sin and evolution why do Christians find it okay to think of themselves and others as unworthy vile sinners, but saying you descended from a primate is going to far?
Because according to Christianity, humans are the only living things with souls, and saying we came from beings with no souls is preposterous. Or maybe they just don't like the idea of us being part of the evolutionary line of primates. OR, they think that we popped out of the hand of a deity and life went on from there? It's open to interpretation
But just to clarify this, MGW, I hope you know that we came from a common ancestor, not 'monkies', yes?
Ok, I can understand if you need the Political-Scientific comparison so, I'll start reading what The Nat'l Academy of Sciences has to say, but there is no way you'll ever convince me to take the garbage that Berkley cranks out as "honest" scientific fact. I do agree to drop the "all abouts". I did some more reading after your comment, and "I see the Light".
Ok, Freak, don't blow a head caskset, I promise, "No more links", on this thread. No, actually, Freak, I think you're actually describing Darwin's "selective species" theory, not Evolution.
There is actually a guy who proved God's exsistance through numbers.
By "roved", you mean like, found some coincidence after searching through random stuff for an inhumane amount of time, and instantly assumed it to be some form of direct evidence?
No, he actually had some huge eloabrate equasion that somehow proved His exsistance. It was on the news 2-3 years back, I don't remember the guys name. I'll see if I can get anything.
Ok, Freak, don't blow a head casket, I promise, "No more links", on this thread.
fixed. And there were just replies of nothing but posted links, most were failing, it just doesn't look good on a thread, nothing personal.
No, actually, Freak, I think you're actually describing Darwin's "Survival of the Fittest" law, not Evolution.
Fixed again. And I wonder...is Survival of the Fittest separate from the overall scheme of Evolution? Nope. It is one of the many "laws" that provide a credible basis on the much-larger theory of Evolution. It is part of Evolution. Nobody else caught this...?
Fixed again. And I wonder...is Survival of the Fittest separate from the overall scheme of Evolution? Nope. It is one of the many "laws" that provide a credible basis on the much-larger theory of Evolution. It is part of Evolution. Nobody else caught this...?
