18 Jun 05
Evolution is a theory proven by scientific experiments and observations. The exisitance of God is merely a hypothesis not provable by any experiment I know of. Creationists wish to have a disclaimer placed in evolution text books stating evolution is merely a theory. Are they willing to have a disclaimer placed in their bibles stating the existence of god is merely an unprovable hypothesis? 667joe🙄
18 Jun 05
I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that creationism is not dependant on the Bible, Christianity, or any religion for that matter. Saying that God used evolution to create life as He saw fit is creationism. Therefore, creationism and evolution not only are not opposites, but could be quite compatible. It is the idea that the metaphorical stories in the Bible are history that messes everything up.
... --- ...
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI find it quite curious that many religious dudes don't want to go along with this idea. It seems quite a reasonable explanation that gets around the thorny problem of scientific evidence supporting evolution but still doesn't rule out a divine creator.
I would like to take this moment to remind everyone that creationism is not dependant on the Bible, Christianity, or any religion for that matter. Saying that God used evolution to create life as He saw fit is creationism. Therefore, creationism and evolution not only are not opposites, but could be quite compatible. It is the idea that the metaphorical stories in the Bible are history that messes everything up.
... --- ...
After all, if you wanted an apple tree in your garden you wouldn't rush out there armed with leaves, twigs, branches and some nails and glue you would simply take a seed and a small trowel. Why wouldn't god take this route?
Perhaps, for believers, an approach that grants evolution any credibility at all is to be avoided completely.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by ShallowBlueThey don't like it because they don't believe in God, but instead believe in the Bible.
I find it quite curious that many religious dudes don't want to go along with this idea. It seems quite a reasonable explanation that gets around the thorny problem of scientific evidence supporting evolution but still doesn't rule out a divine creator.
After all, if you wanted an apple tree in your garden you wouldn't rush out there armed with leave ...[text shortened]... lievers, an approach that grants evolution any credibility at all is to be avoided completely.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by 667joeEvolution is a theory proven by scientific experiments and observations.
Evolution is a theory proven by scientific experiments and observations. The exisitance of God is merely a hypothesis not provable by any experiment I know of. Creationists wish to have a disclaimer placed in evolution text books stating evolution is merely a theory. Are they willing to have a disclaimer placed in their bibles stating the existence of god is merely an unprovable hypothesis? 667joe🙄
I'd love to hear about these.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by 667joeActually there are Experiments and Ovservations that give us a clue about the exisitance of God, Its not totaly a hypothesis. Read the Books called "Beyond Deaths Door" and "Experiments of after life" Probaly can be found in your local library, only to name a few, written by educated scientists. Its hard to prove God by science, although there are studies to show afterlife is a real thing
Evolution is a theory proven by scientific experiments and observations. The exisitance of God is merely a hypothesis not provable by any experiment I know of. Creationists wish to have a disclaimer placed in evolution text books stating evolution is merely a theory. Are they willing to have a disclaimer placed in their bibles stating the existence of god is merely an unprovable hypothesis? 667joe🙄
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by 667joeSo you don't think that a person is dead if he/she has a signed death certificate?
Near death experiences are easily explained by the effects of hypoxia on the brain. Brains can conjer up all sorts of hallucinations. Ever had a dream?
A near death experience by definition did not involve death.
18 Jun 05
Originally posted by 667joeactually, according to the study in that book, They were dead, not near death, and were resicuted. and most of them all reported basicly the same experiance, which a dream, that would not be possable, and according the the book, patients would somtimes describe who was in the other room beside them, and what clothes they was wearing, even though they never been in the other room etc.
Near death experiences are easily explained by the effects of hypoxia on the brain. Brains can conjer up all sorts of hallucinations. Ever had a dream?
A near death experience by definition did not involve death.
The other book proved that mediums could somtimes talk to the dead, The author is athiest, but believes the soul dont die, My friend (who is very smart BTW)was an athiest, read that book, and now believes in afterlive and in a God for that matter, he still thinks its silly though to worship him,
there not wacko books written by wacko people, they know what their doing, I challenge you to go to a library and read it,