Christian dun believe in Darwin's
-
-
not only christians, at least 3/4s of the whole world doesnt believe in evolution, and mr darwin's somewhat of a nutty.
there's always a missing link here and there. i'd rather be a self-respecting person and believe i was created by a higher being rather than evolving from a prehistoric lizard. -
Originally posted by vito_corleone:not only christians, at least 3/4s of the whole world doesnt believe in evolution, and mr darwin's somewhat of a nutty. there's always a missing link here and there. i'd rather be a self-respecting person and believe i was created by a higher being rather than evolving from a prehistoric lizard.
i dont know whether to say its ego or delusion... -
i'd rather be a self-respecting person and believe i was created by a higher being rather than evolving from a prehistoric lizard.
I just need to point out the fact tat u don't choose on wat to believe. U should believe on facts. Otherwise the japanese r right in saying tat they attacked china/singapore in WW2 to liberate them. Why should they choose to believe they r invaders when they can choose to be liberators ?
And also I feel surprised why people seems to label the idea of "evolving from a prehistoric lizard" or "ape" disgraceful, wrong or shameful. Evolving from ape doesn't make u an ape. Evolving from a lizard doesn't means u r a lizard. U r still u, a human and knowing your roots doesn't make u any lesser. It is like telling the company making the fastest plane tat the original plane made by wright can't fly too far or telling the chief engineer of the latest jet engine tat the beginning of motor is a steam engine tat can only give off a few horse powers. Is it disgraceful to know and accept the root of a particular species ? -
Let me lend support to my old nemesis SIS this time.Originally posted by stupidissmart:And also I feel surprised why people seems to label the idea of "evolving from a prehistoric lizard" or "ape" disgraceful, wrong or shameful. Evolving from ape doesn't make u an ape. Evolving from a lizard doesn't means u r a lizard. U r still u, a human and knowing your roots doesn't make u any lesser.
When God created the lizards .. He said it was good. So what's so shameful about evolving from some prehistoric lizards?
-
some ppl dun welcome this kind of topic dicussion in EHOriginally posted by laurence82:got one person post a topic proving no such thing, in EH, go look... 
-
you come we take it.Originally posted by crazy monkey:some ppl dun welcome this kind of topic dicussion in EH
(as long as can inc. the rating
) -
I think the main flaw in Darwin's theory is the missing link concept. Archaelogists had yet to unearth fossils of dinosaurs or animals that are in the transition stage like for example an animal that is becoming from non airborne to airborne intermediate species? The crucial missing link is this.
Till the day fossils of such nature is found, it is still hard for ppl to digest the fact that they evolve from say ape for the case of we humans.
PS...... I used to be an ardent supporter of Darwin but now have switched camp to the notion of Creationist G*d but this G*d is an alien instead -
christians don't understand that their bible is not written by that man in the heavens, but rather, by humans, which means like Darwin's theory, is likely to be flawed.
-
no worOriginally posted by Icemoon:you come we take it.
(as long as can inc. the rating )
got one mad dog chasing people out wor.... -
they have found dinosaurs with feathersOriginally posted by sohguanh:I think the main flaw in Darwin's theory is the missing link concept. Archaelogists had yet to unearth fossils of dinosaurs or animals that are in the transition stage like for example an animal that is becoming from non airborne to airborne intermediate species? The crucial missing link is this.
Till the day fossils of such nature is found, it is still hard for ppl to digest the fact that they evolve from say ape for the case of we humans.
PS...... I used to be an ardent supporter of Darwin but now have switched camp to the notion of Creationist G*d but this G*d is an alien instead -
Who say?Originally posted by crazy monkey:evolution theory ?
It doesn't contradict the bible teaching actually. -
bible say God create man Darwin say man evolve from apesOriginally posted by Honeybunz:Who say?
It doesn't contradict the bible teaching actually. -
and non-believer says man created god.Originally posted by crazy monkey:bible say God create man Darwin say man evolve from apes -
But Darwin never say God has no part in creating evolution or making it happen.Originally posted by crazy monkey:bible say God create man Darwin say man evolve from apes -
Some scientists speculate that chicken are evolved from dinosaur (I think T-Rex). Saw this from a documentary in overseas science centreOriginally posted by crazy monkey:they have found dinosaurs with feathers -
Evolutionary creationism/Theistic evolutionism
the general belief that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the scientific theory of evolution, It views evolution as a tool used by God and can synthesize with gap or day-age creationism, although most adherents deny that Genesis was meant to be interpreted as history at all. It can still be described as "creationism" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, but in the creation-evolution controversy its proponents generally take the "evolutionist" side while disputing that some scientists' methodological assumption of materialism can be taken as ontological as well. Many creationists would deny that this is creationism at all, and should rather be called "theistic evolution", just as many scientists allow voice to their spiritual side. In particular, this view rejects the doctrine of special creation. -
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin%27s_views_on_religionCharles Darwin's views on religion have been the subject of much interest. His work was pivotal in the development of evolution theory which some argue helps show that God is unnecessary, while others feel that attacking Darwin and restricting teaching of evolution helps to evangelise their faith.Originally posted by Honeybunz:But Darwin never say God has no part in creating evolution or making it happen.
Charles Darwin had a Non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church.
In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that he did "not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation", but was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an Atheist". -
IQ Question : How do you know they (the fossil) are Adam and Eve?Originally posted by miaomiao11:wait till they find the fossil of adam and eve lo -
its on the tombstoneOriginally posted by Honeybunz:IQ Question : How do you know they (the fossil) are Adam and Eve? -
IQ zero one!!Originally posted by crazy monkey:its on the tombstone
hahahha
jk
They dun have belly buttons! -
your IQ then zero. fossil left bone onli how to see belly buttonOriginally posted by Honeybunz:IQ zero one!!
hahahha
jk
They dun have belly buttons! -
who say fossil must be bone only?Originally posted by crazy monkey:your IQ then zero. fossil left bone onli how to see belly button -
so has the theory of evolution been proven as a fact?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I just need to point out the fact tat u don't choose on wat to believe. U should believe on facts. Otherwise the japanese r right in saying tat they attacked china/singapore in WW2 to liberate them. Why should they choose to believe they r invaders when they can choose to be liberators ?
And also I feel surprised why people seems to label the idea of "evolving from a prehistoric lizard" or "ape" disgraceful, wrong or shameful. Evolving from ape doesn't make u an ape. Evolving from a lizard doesn't means u r a lizard. U r still u, a human and knowing your roots doesn't make u any lesser. It is like telling the company making the fastest plane tat the original plane made by wright can't fly too far or telling the chief engineer of the latest jet engine tat the beginning of motor is a steam engine tat can only give off a few horse powers. Is it disgraceful to know and accept the root of a particular species ? last i know its still called THEORY not LAW of evolution.