To ThinkOfOne:
The Holy Bible says we were created in God's own image.
That means we were created with the ability to create,
on a smaller scale, just like God. No other creature
was made like this. They may have been given the
instinct to build a nest in s certain way, etc. They were
preprogrammed to act in certain ways. There is no
evolution involved in it.
To Penguin:
I don't accept a lot of things the Catholic Church
believes and teaches. For example, they teach
that Jesus the christ was crucified on friday and
call it Good Friday. Then arose from the grave on
sunday and by some magical arithmetic claim he
was in the grave 3 days and 3 nights just like he
had prophecied. They are so blind they can't see
that the Holy Bible indicates that the christ was
crucified on wednesday. They also ignore the Jewish
feast Passover and substitute a pagan feast Easter in
its place. They took another pagan holiday feast
and changed the name to Christmas and claim Jesus
the christ was born then. Luke 2:41-42 clearly
states he became twelve at the time of the Passover
(New American Standard Bible). Many of their Priests
think it is okay to sexually molest young boys as long
as you can get away with it. I don't trust the Catholic
Church as any authority on Christianity. I certainly
would not trust there decision on evolution.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsI am sorry, but since it wasn't clear that it was a joke, it made you look silly instead. Now that we know it was a joke, can you explain why it is silly to believe that one kind of animal somehow turns into another kind of animal? So far the only reasoning you have given is 'because God made it that way', which to an atheist like me, sounds silly.
It was a joke to make fun of how silly it is to believe
that one kind animal somehow turns into another kind
of animal no matter how many trillions of years you
give it. It is impossible because God made it that way.
We can play the 'your silly' game all day, or we can discuss the actual way this all works. The theory of evolution is backed up by plenty of solid evidence. Do you have any counter evidence or do you see any flaw in any of the logic used in the theory?
Originally posted by RJHindsI think you have confused abiogenesis with evolution. Or are you focusing on the Russian because you think he was therefore atheist and must be the devil in disguise?
that certain conditions had developed on earth that
were favorable to life and that certain simple
aggregates of matter that had the properties of
life were then able to develop into simple living
organism,
Apparently we are expected to believe it just happened somehow by chance.
No, you are not expected to believe anything. Believe what you want. Believe that God guides the electrons in your monitor, or the apple as it falls to earth under gravity if you wish. All science does is investigate how it happens and by what rules. If you believe God made the rules, thats fine with me. If you believe God breaks the rules, then it is interesting the nobody have every been able to find any evidence of this.
And all the atheist shouted "Yea, there is no God, God is dead!"
Most of us are atheists for quite a different reason. Are you Christian because you just couldn't figure out how abiogenesis happened? I didn't think so. Similarly, I don't take a solution to a physics problem as evidence that God doesn't exist. I already believe God doesn't exist, I don't need to hunt for evidence to prove it or celebrate when such evidence is supposedly found (though how the workings of abiogenesis would be considered evidence against Gods existence is beyond me).
To Twhitehead:
What? Abiogenesis? Who made this word up?
Does it have anything to do with Genesis in
the Holy Bible? Both of us are not scientist,
right? If not, we can not really discuss anything
of a scientific nature credibly. We can only
discuss our beliefs. I am a Christian and
believe in the creator God and his son. You, on
the other hand, are an atheist and believe their
is no God. So, anything that requires God to
explain, you will not accept. When I look at the
sun, moon, and stars in the heavens, I see the
marvelous work of God. God said, "It is I who
made the earth, and created man upon it. I
stretched out the heavens with My hands..."
Isaiah 45:12. ""It is He who made the earth by
His power, Who established the world by His wisdom.
And by His understanding He stretched out the
heavens". Jeremiah 51:15 (New American Standard Bible).
God stretched out the heavens! How awesome is that?
The creation is enough evidence for me that there is a
creator God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsI hope you don't mind too much me butting in here because I know this is supposed to be for Twhitehead but:
To Twhitehead:
What? Abiogenesis? Who made this word up?
Does it have anything to do with Genesis in
the Holy Bible? Both of us are not scientist,
right? If not, we can not really discuss anything
of a scientific nature credibly. We can only
discuss our beliefs. I am a Christian and
believe in the creator God and his son. You, on
the other ha e is that?
The creation is enough evidence for me that there is a
creator God.
RJHinds
“...What? Abiogenesis? Who made this word up? ...”
I wouldn’t know who but ALL words are “made-up” -right?
“...Does it have anything to do with Genesis in
the Holy Bible? ...”
No (or at least it isn’t supposed to be about that in particular)
“...Both of us are not scientist,
right? If not, we can not really discuss anything
of a scientific nature credibly. We can only
discuss our beliefs. ...”
why can't we discuss the scientific facts?
We don't have to be scientists to know some of the scientific facts and stating a scientific fact is not merely stating a “belief” because it has been verified with credible evidence.
“...You, on
the other hand, are an atheist and believe their
is no God. So, anything that requires God to
explain, you will not accept. ..."
nothing we know of requires a god to explain it and that is why we atheists are atheists.
If one day we find something that really does require a god to explain it then we will accept.
“...When I look at the
sun, moon, and stars in the heavens, I see the
marvelous work of God. ...”
when we atheists look at the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens, we see the marvellous work of nature.
“...The creation is enough evidence for me that there is a
creator God. ..”
There is no logical contradiction in everything we see existing and the beginning of everything occurring and there being NO god to create it therefore the mere existence of everything we see and its beginning is not “evidence” that a 'god' had anything to do with it.
Originally posted by RJHindsFrom the Encyclopedia International on the article "evolution" it states that the Russian investigator, A. I. Oparin, in 1923, proposed the theory that certain conditions had developed on earth that were favorable to life and that certain simple aggregates of matter that had the properties of life were then able to develop into simple living organism, which evolved into progressively more complex forms.
To Penguin:
From the Encyclopedia International on the article
"evolution" it states that the Russian investigator,
A. I. Oparin, in 1923, proposed the theory that
certain conditions had developed on earth that
were favorable to life and that certain simple
aggregates of matter that had the properties of
life were then able to develop into simple l ...[text shortened]... w by chance.
And all the atheist shouted "Yea, there is no God,
God is dead!"
RJHinds
This is abiogenesis, not evolution. The fact that you were unaware of the term (look it up on Wikipedia) reveals a bit more about your knowledge in this area. To bring you up to speed:
- Evolution requires a replicating structure to already exist. This could be a complex multi-cellular animal, a single-celled organism or just a molecule like RNA.
- Abiogenesis is the mechanism (still not fully understood) by which that structure arose.
The self-replicating structure is most likely to be something like RNA since abiogenesis relies on chance and so the simpler the structure, the more likely it is to have occured. Evolution does not rely on chance and so enables complex structures to arise.
There is no mention that God made the condtions favorable for life and that he created the living plants and creatures. Apparently we are expected to believe it just happened somehow by chance.
And all the atheist shouted "Yea, there is no God, God is dead!"
This speaks volumes about your encyclopedia! An encyclopedia is supposed to be an impartial reference. I have done a search on the internet and can find no mention of the Encyclopedia International. Did you get it from a fundamentalist Christian bookstore?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsYep, found it. Can't find out anything about it though. No reviews, can't 'look inside', only available 2nd hand.
To Peguin:
The Encyclopedia International is copyrighed by
Grolier Incorporated and in Canada by Grolier
Limited.
Standard book number 7172-0701-3
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number
77-88105
RJHinds
Purely based on the excerpt you quoted, I would suggest that the best use for that encyclopedia is as toilet paper.
[edit]just read your next reply. So you put the closing quote in the wrong place? Fair enough. Please ignore the line immediately above.[/edit]
The publisher seems impartial as far as I can tell.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by RJHindsLooks like we can add another to the argumentum ad ignorantiam list.
To Twhitehead:
What? Abiogenesis? Who made this word up?
Does it have anything to do with Genesis in
the Holy Bible? Both of us are not scientist,
right? If not, we can not really discuss anything
of a scientific nature credibly. We can only
discuss our beliefs. I am a Christian and
believe in the creator God and his son. You, on
the other ha ...[text shortened]... e is that?
The creation is enough evidence for me that there is a
creator God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsA quick look on the internet reveals that "genesis" means "a beginning or origin of anything" and is an English word, from Old English: via Latin from Greek; related to Greek gignesthai to be born.
What? Abiogenesis? Who made this word up?
Does it have anything to do with Genesis in
the Holy Bible?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/genesis
It appears the word does not come from Hebrew and thus the book of the Bible by that name was named so later.
Both of us are not scientist, right?
Well its not my career no, but I am reasonably knowledgeable about science.
If not, we can not really discuss anything of a scientific nature credibly.
Why not? The whole point of science is that it encourages discussion and criticism by anyone willing to put in the effort. Neither of us will have much credibility, so merely stating things without evidence will go nowhere, but if we back up what we say with references, logic, reasoning or evidence, then sure, we can have a perfectly valid discussion.
We have already established that we both agree that chickens never have snake children. Is that a belief? Did we need scientific credentials to agree on that?
So, anything that requires God to explain, you will not accept.
I accept nothing blindly. If you can show me that God is required to explain something, then I may start to believe in God. If however you simply say "God explains this", then I will be somewhat skeptical - and so should a Christian or other theist. Nobody should accept anything blindly just because they belong to a religion, or believe in God.
God stretched out the heavens! How awesome is that?
The creation is enough evidence for me that there is a
creator God.
Nobody so far has said is isn't awesome, or even claimed that God didn't do it (other than stating that I am atheist).
But surely you don't think that this tells us anything whatsoever about whether or not a dog can be bread selectively until its descendants are of a different 'kind'? I note that you still haven't been very specific about what 'kind' means even though you are quite ready to make far reaching claims that include the word.
To Penguin:
Yes, the encyclopedia is an old one published in
1970's, but that doesn't mean the historical information
presented can't be correct. I don't think the actual
person that wrote the article was impartial. It looked
to me that he believed in evolution. But apparently
he did not know about the word abiogenesis because
he did not use it in the article on evolution. I guess
I should consult a more recently published encyclopedia
on evolution and see if they explain how abiogenesis fits
in with the theory.
RJHinds
To twhitehead:
Wow! Chickens don't have snake children!
We really established something there.
A big breakthrough. Huh?
So much for the humor, I'll try to be serious
now. We cna discuss this and maybe we will
get somewhere and maybe not. However, it
is my gut feeling that since we have such
opposite belief systems it will be extremely
difficult for us to agree that evolution is either
fact or fiction. As you know I put it in the
category of science fiction. The theory of
evolution has not been proven, that is why it
is called the "theory of evolution ," instead of
the "law of evolution". I don't believe it will ever
be proven because I think it is false and, as you
pointed out earlier, a work of satan.
I thought I explained what I thought "kind" meant
earlier. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better.
I remember when I had biology class in school there
was a classification system the scientist used, but
it was in latin, which I never understood. But I think
the Holy Bible use of "kind" is somewhat different
from how the scientist break it down. As I said before
the canine "kind" would include wolves, foxes, dogs and
other animals of that "kind". The rodent "kind" would
include rats, mice, hamsters, beavers and animals of
that "kind". So, just like the chicken, which obviouly is
of the bird "kind", will not have snake or crocodile children,
because they are of the reptile "kind". So to wolves will
not have rat children because they are a different "kind".
I hope that is a simple enough explanation because I
can't think of any better way to explain it.
RJHinds
RJHinds