S"c"ience is actually an abstract concept and doesn't technically exist.
Science is actually the Latin word for knowledge, and is, as such a particular branch or collection of knowledge relating to something abstract, such as truth.
Well, my belief is in creationism. God had a plan for us in the very beginning. God created man out of His breathe and clay (soul and body). And, God wanted a loving relationship with man. So, with that having been said, my belief is in God creating man.
LOL noob
By creating good God created evil; by giving us the choice he created freewill.
God doesn't give mankind a choice. I've used this analogy a thousand times: You get robbed at gunpoint, you can surrender your wallet, or you can say no to him and get shot and later die, the robber comes and steals your wallet off your dead body. Its like the Heaven and Hell thing. Its basically, join us or die.
As darkness is created because of the creation of light;
you are thinking of shadows, darkness the absence of light.
God doesn't give mankind a choice. I've used this analogy a thousand times: You get robbed at gunpoint, you can surrender your wallet, or you can say no to him and get shot and later die, the robber comes and steals your wallet off your dead body. Its like the Heaven and Hell thing. Its basically, join us or die.
Well, you give a choice in your analogy, so maybe you could explain it better.
God created the world, and "it was good" until Eve chose to sin. God, being perfect, couldn't allow such evil to go unpunished. Then, he made a way to get rid of the sin without hurting the human, by allowing his own son to die.
So, yeah. If the human doesn't grab onto the life saver, he won't get onto the mothership that his ancestor jumped off.
Ok, in an earlier post I said that I believe in literal creation, but I don't think its impossible for evolution to be correct. I have studied both sides of the debate and think that both sides have some good points. I'm really seeking the truth. In my position, research can best be done by grouping myself with the creationists. Nothing will shake my belief that god was ultimately responsible, but he may have used natural means.
It should be noted that if things were made by a supernatural being, there would not be any real evidence. The most striking evidence would be the lack of evidence- thus, most creationists center their efforts on disproving evolution.
Not all Christians are creationists; many believe in God-directed evolution. Therefore, the debate has little to do with God's existence and that should be discussed on another thread.
It seems we have a creation representative now, but I already went through the trouble of digging up my old "resent", and I'd hate to waste it. If you guys honestly want to hear the creation side, I'll give it to you.
One last note: I am extremely argumentative. I will debate anything for as long as I can. I still have a fairly open mind, even if I am sick of the debate. I may end up saying things I am not convinced of, or even do not believe. So, for the sake of convenience- and my present- this is the CREATIONIST side, not necessarily MY side.
Creationist argument #1: Law of biogenesis
The law of biogenisis states that no life can come from non-life. Evolution requires this. Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Creationist argument #2: Natural selection
Natural selection only gets rid of harmful characteristics, it does not make new ones. Diversity is actually lost. No better material is coming in, so no new species can come out.
Hope you guys enjoy my paraphrases of points in In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown, Ph.D. =)
The law of biogenisis states that no life can come from non-life. Evolution requires this. Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Evolution is how life changes over time, not how it started.
Natural selection only gets rid of harmful characteristics, it does not make new ones. Diversity is actually lost. No better material is coming in, so no new species can come out.
Not quite, by getting rid of harmful characteristics the good ones are kept. Mutations can be good or bad, the bads ones don't live to mate and the good ones do, this is evolution.
Natural selection only gets rid of harmful characteristics, it does not make new ones. Diversity is actually lost. No better material is coming in, so no new species can come out.
Mutation causes the changes that force natural selection to, well, naturally select those organisms that are better suited to their environment
To answer both those comments (argument also from book)
Creationist argument #3
"Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful: some are meaningless, many are lethal."
it goes on to say that no recorded mutation has ever given a species an advantage in its natural environment or led to greater species variability.
S"c"ience is actually an abstract concept and doesn't technically exist. I cannot prove my God exists as you cannot prove he doesn't God couldn't be "roven". Remember science can be fallible and putting all your faith in it simply isn't intelligent.
Not really. Science has a very scientific definition. It's not really fallible, as if new information is gained, it can be studied and previous theories can be re-evaluated.
It's slightly annoying arguing religion because the whole "you can't prove him wrong" thing is just stupid. That's a lame ass reason to believe in something. Just call it supernatural, of course you can't prove it wrong. It's just all obviously completely made up and made to the point you can't prove it wrong, because its BS.
Not really. Science has a very scientific definition. It's not really fallible, as if new information is gained, it can be studied and previous theories can be re-evaluated.
Sorry, I meant to say science has a very solid definition... not scientific...
The law of biogenisis states that no life can come from non-life. Evolution requires this. Spontaneous generation has never been observed.
Evolution is how life changes over time, not how it started.
Yeah that's for another thread I think.
Creationist argument #2: Natural selection
Natural selection only gets rid of harmful characteristics, it does not make new ones. Diversity is actually lost. No better material is coming in, so no new species can come out.
Well this just isn't true. Natural selection can mean that in a species, if a mutation or a change in environment occurs, a new or different characteristic can eventually arise among a population.
Creationist argument #3
"Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful: some are meaningless, many are lethal."
it goes on to say that no recorded mutation has ever given a species an advantage in its natural environment or led to greater species variability.
Well where does the book get this idea? I don't think that whoever wrote this really understood evolution. A mutation can be any change in a species, it doesn't need to be nuclear radiation messing up an organism... Any change or feature of an organism that gives it a better chance, just gives that creature a better chance to survive. And in general among a population, that characteristic will become more popular.
And these are things that make the species better able to survive in their environment.
It's slightly annoying arguing religion because the whole "you can't prove him wrong" thing is just stupid. That's a lame *** reason to believe in something. Just call it supernatural, of course you can't prove it wrong. It's just all obviously completely made up and made to the point you can't prove it wrong, because its BS.
You don't know me and you don't know why I believe so please don't act otherwise.
