|
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
God's creation vs. Science
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 5:25 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
The Word is clear and uncomplicated. That is the beauty therein, isn't it? Quoting: Oh, I see.
No, it is full of contradictions and errors.
[link to members.aol.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 5:34 PM | |
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/21/2008 5:37 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Did you know King David had a sexual disease? Oh, my, and he did dance so well. That's what he gets for stealing another mans's wife. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 414223
9/21/2008 7:01 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
earth has to be billions of years old for the evolution theory to fit in,the solar system even older.this is to fit in with the BIG bang theory.there is enough scientific proof that the earth is younger than bilions of years. this makes the whole puzzle fall apart. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 7:15 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
earth has to be billions of years old for the evolution theory to fit in,the solar system even older.this is to fit in with the BIG bang theory.there is enough scientific proof that the earth is younger than bilions of years. this makes the whole puzzle fall apart. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 414223
To the contrary. The evidence does indeed support a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 13.5 billion year old universe. |
|
urantian
User ID: 430051
9/21/2008 7:20 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
CONCLUSION
Secular science has established its theories on a basis of observed astronomical and planetary phenomena which it then tries to support in a by laboratory through in-vitro experiments.
Science only accepts its own “scientific facts”, which often are proven to be false and unacceptable as society evolves in time.
Science at present rejects the theory of creation by God and does not accept God’s spiritual virtues as the creative motivating force in the evolution of the human mind, and would only accept the theories based on the matter-energy evolution of life. Material science, not accepting the spiritual insights of the human mind, also does not accept the concept of “life after death”.
Orthodox religions believe in God and creation but being ceremonial, ritualistic and under heavy material burdens imposed by a dominating material society, have lost spiritual insights.
Philosophy that should have the wisdom of correlating the spiritual advancements of science and religion, now both spiritually dormant, is itself not offering any new spiritual insights.
Theosophy and Urantia on the other hand teach that the origin of life is based on a spiritual dialog with higher planetary and cosmic life.
Theosophy and Urantia both accept creation, involution and evolution of life, within the Absolute Reality of God and consider the mortal stage of life to be only the beginning phase of man’s ascent to eternity in his Being.
Both Theosophy and Urantia share many similarities of views considering the significant time gap between recorded teachings, which could only mean that secular science base its theories only on the observed fragments of the universe phenomena of the infinite and eternal process within Absolute Reality of God.
The material prosperity of any society or world depends upon spiritual creativity and spiritual insights that precipitate the advancements of science, religion, philosophy and art through the evolving human mind.
In future articles we will review the teachings about creation, involution and evolution processes, as taught by the cosmic brotherhood, because without human acceptance of God and his creative spirits in time, life becomes dormant and decadent and the collapses of godless societies have been well documented in our planetary history.
© Copyright
References:
Big Bang; The story of the universe, H.Couper and N.Henbast
Theosophy: An Introduction, The Theosophical Society
The Urantia Book, Urantia Foundation
[link to www.lighttoparadise.com]
[link to www.urantiabook.org] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 7:21 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
earth has to be billions of years old for the evolution theory to fit in,the solar system even older.this is to fit in with the BIG bang theory.there is enough scientific proof that the earth is younger than bilions of years. this makes the whole puzzle fall apart.
To the contrary. The evidence does indeed support a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 13.5 billion year old universe. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Here are some good references...
[link to chem.tufts.edu] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 7:23 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
CONCLUSION
Secular science has established its theories on a basis of observed astronomical and planetary phenomena which it then tries to support in a by laboratory through in-vitro experiments. Quoting: urantian 430051
So, Creationism doesn't start with a pre-supposed outcome and try to find evidence to support it. Give me a break. |
|
fallenmonk
User ID: 414223
9/21/2008 8:11 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
earth has to be billions of years old for the evolution theory to fit in,the solar system even older.this is to fit in with the BIG bang theory.there is enough scientific proof that the earth is younger than bilions of years. this makes the whole puzzle fall apart.
To the contrary. The evidence does indeed support a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 13.5 billion year old universe. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
I have scientific proof earth is younger and I gather you have scientific proof it is older so it is just what side of the fence we stand.you are unlikely to disprove me and vise versa. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 8:15 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I have scientific proof earth is younger Quoting: fallenmonk 414223
Care to share some of that "proof"? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 8:18 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I have scientific proof earth is younger
Care to share some of that "proof"? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
His Pastor told him so  |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/21/2008 8:22 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 8:51 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
If Only we could observe evolution in fruit flies  |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 8:56 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
We keep hearing you creationists say that there are no intermediate forms. This is pure hogwash.
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
Evidence for evolution...
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
[link to www.txtwriter.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 88145
9/21/2008 9:04 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.
If Only we could observe evolution in fruit flies
We do...
[link to www.guardian.co.uk]
[link to www.eurekalert.org]
[link to www.pbs.org]
[link to www.bio-medicine.org]
[link to www.nih.gov]
[link to www.citeulike.org] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/21/2008 9:15 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.
We keep hearing you creationists say that there are no intermediate forms. This is pure hogwash.
[ link to www.talkorigins.org]
Evidence for evolution...
[ link to www.talkorigins.org]
[ link to www.txtwriter.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/21/2008 9:32 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED
Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.
Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.
We keep hearing you creationists say that there are no intermediate forms. This is pure hogwash.
[ link to www.talkorigins.org]
Evidence for evolution...
[ link to www.talkorigins.org]
[ link to www.txtwriter.com]
I used to believe in evolution until i found out about archaeological COVER UPS!
Also I dont accept the biblical view on creation either
Man has been here for millions of years.
IF you want the truth find and read this book,or go to the website under the same title.
Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 506542
9/21/2008 9:55 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 10:07 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
I used to believe in evolution until i found out about archaeological COVER UPS!
Also I dont accept the biblical view on creation either
Man has been here for millions of years.
IF you want the truth find and read this book,or go to the website under the same title.
Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
 You may not be a creationist, You are a Conspiracy Nut, I doubt you really understand and know anything about evolution other then what you have heard about from other creationist. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 496448
9/21/2008 10:08 PM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Michael A. Cremo is an American Hindu creationist whose work argues that modern humans have lived on the earth for billions of years  |
|
The Professor
User ID: 385883
9/22/2008 1:05 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
One part of Genesis is taking about the creation of Earth; the other is talking about the creation of the Garden of Eden.
Where did you get this idea?
It is 'Bible'. Read Gen. chapter 1 and 2 and compare them. The accounts are different. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
The two accounts are not only different, they are also contradictory. An accurate reading of the first account shows that Adam was created after the animals; whereas in the second account Adam was clearly created before the animals, the animals being created afterward to find a help mate for him. In the second account, after describing how God placed Adam in the garden the Bible continues the story:
“And the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them…..” (Genesis 2:19-20).
There are other contradictions of course. For example, the above verses in the second account say that “every fowl of the air” was created out of the ground; whereas according to the first account, the birds were created out of the water:
“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales and every living creature which moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, ;and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:20-21).
There is simply no way that one can defend these conflicting accounts and still remain intellectually honest. Either one account is true and the other false, or they are both false. Since at least one account is false, the entire concepts of Biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration have been completely discredited; therefore, the Bible cannot be used to prove anything.
Perhaps now you will all know why Biblical Creationism cannot be taught in the public schools. Even little children will raise questions that the teachers are ill equipped to answer.
I have quoted the Bible accurately. I will let others have the last word. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/22/2008 2:01 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
earth has to be billions of years old for the evolution theory to fit in,the solar system even older.this is to fit in with the BIG bang theory.there is enough scientific proof that the earth is younger than bilions of years. this makes the whole puzzle fall apart.
To the contrary. The evidence does indeed support a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 13.5 billion year old universe. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 88145
Absolutely and through fossils and rock, ancient artifacts...lot's of evidence. |
|
DrPostman  
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 2:11 AM
 | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
|
DrPostman
Forum Moderator
User ID: 51197
9/22/2008 2:14 AM
| | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
IF you want the truth find and read this book,or go to the website under the same title.
Forbidden Archeology - Michael A. Cremo Quoting: Anonymous Coward 506542
No truth there. Truth here:
[link to www.ramtops.co.uk]
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
[link to www.ramtops.co.uk]
[link to www.talkorigins.org]
"Sooner or later all the peoples of the world will have to discover a way to
live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into
a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve
for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation.
The foundation of such a method is love."
--Reverend Martin Luther King
Can't PM? Feel free to email me at
DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Want to know if a site is down, or if
the problem is at your end? Go to:
[link to downforeveryoneorjustme.com] |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 479477
9/22/2008 2:23 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Lol, that's funny, Postman, and I am waiting for that god particle. No, don't laugh. I do believe in evolution. I'm not one to believe something exists at the snap of God's finger or hands, but I believe the human soul will be discovered, if it already hasn't been.
I think children are wanting more than what they've been taught by church or school. Teachers are a little nervous concerning the subject of Science V Creationism. What do they say? Why can't they combine both? They don't know, because for the most part, people rarely have a spiritual experience. I don't see a difference between the two and know that science and spirituality will merge.
"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory." |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:14 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
They found the Pharaohs army at the bottom of the red sea.
They found the real Mt Sinai at Jebel Al Lawz in Saudi Arabia. Top of the mountain has stone that has been superheated to convert to volcanic glass, but no volcanic activity anywhere near it. Top of the entire mountain is black.
Your analysis is erred to put it mildly... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 480668
Those two examples you mentioned are not true.
They found what might be a chariot wheel in the Red Sea...not an army.
Jebel Al Lawz is NOT Mt. Sinai either.
The man who made that claim has been thoroughly debunked. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:25 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Firstly, there was a sun, and a moon. Quoting: Oh, I see.
Yep on the 4th day, the sun and moon were created.
Which contradicts the fact that they were created on the 1st day.
Ironic isn't it?
Apparently God created the sun and moon two times.
On the 1st day and 4th day.
Secondly, the word used for vegetation in the Hebrew is to RECREATE, meaning the vegetation was dormant. Meaning it was ALREADY here, but not actively able to photosynthesize. Quoting: Oh, I see.
How do you know that?
It doesn't say that in the bible.
The earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2. Quoting: Oh, I see.
How do you know that?
It doesn't say that in the bible.
Many scholars and historians use common sense in surmising there was some sort of cloud surrounding the earth that prevented the full sunlight from reaching it. Thus, why the vegetation lie dormant. Quoting: Oh, I see.
The bible mentions nothing about a cloud.
Guess work won't suffice.
The earth was in a holding state because of the fall of Lucifer. After the fall of Lucifer the earth was without form and void. It existed, but it was without active life. Quoting: Oh, I see.
Where in the bible are you reading this?
Birds did not evolve from land animals. Quoting: Oh, I see.
They evolved from species of dinosaur. The archaeological evidence points to this conclusion.
Evolution has recently been for the most part, disproven. Quoting: Oh, I see.
hahaha, only in your dream world.
Even the catholic church had to admit that evolution exists.
It is perfect science. God is the supreme scientist. Quoting: Oh, I see.
And yet God violates his own scientific laws. Odd? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 474249
9/22/2008 9:32 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
According to the book of Genesis, God created vegetation (the 3rd day) before he created the sun or the moon (4th day). Obviously, vegetation cannot grow without sun light.
So what gives?
Also, according to Genesis, birds were created before land creatures. Birds created on the 5th day, land creatures created on the 6th day.
This model goes entirely against evolution.
According to the evolutionary model, birds evolved from land dwelling creatures.
So what can explain God's unusual time line of creation that goes against science?
Genesis:
[ link to www.biblegateway.com]
algae grows in the dark, and as for the birds, they were water birds. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:32 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
OP
There was light on the FIRST day. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 249919
God created light on the 1st and 4th day.
Confusing, isn't it? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 508242
9/22/2008 9:33 AM | | Re: God's creation vs. Science | Quote |
algae grows in the dark, and as for the birds, they were water birds. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 474249
LOL
Might I ask, WTF are water birds? |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
