Christian dun believe in Darwin's
-
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.
Actually there really is very few missing links as wat u claim now... IMO, even if all the missing links r found, it is likely tat a certain percentage of the population to debunk it basically because it seems to contradict the bibleBut Darwin never say God has no part in creating evolution or making it happen
The process and timeline is different. It do shows contradictionso has the theory of evolution been proven as a fact? last i know its still called THEORY not LAW of evolution.
Tis seems to be one of the most common question posted about evolution... Actually I think earlier in the thread the answer is posted...
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain. -
argue all you want, but its still not a proven fact.
-
What are you trying to achieve with such constant inflammatory replies? You don't have to be so confrontational and negative.Originally posted by The return:His ways is higher than your ways, His thoughts is higher than your thoughts. If you want to have an arguement with Him, you sure lose liao and you may go naked and be shamefully exposed de. You better think of ways to counter-argue by the wisdom He have given you or else, you sure lose one.
I am honestly doubting your intention. What are you trying to prove? That you're better than everyone else? One is supposed to explain in love, not from a pedestal.
Talk is cheap, show the world that you're different not because you're good, but saved by the grace of God.
Matthew 5:46-47
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? -
Ah .. no lah .. law and theory are not defined this way.Originally posted by vito_corleone:so has the theory of evolution been proven as a fact? last i know its still called THEORY not LAW of evolution.
A Law is a general observation in nature .. the Theory attempts to explain the Law.
I hope you still remember your secondary school science. Remember the Ideal Gas Law? The Law makes no attempt to explain the science behind PV = NRT. Instead it was the kinetic theory of matter that did. -
hello everybody.. just so everyone would like to know?
Darwin admitted on his deathbed
that he regretted coming up with the evolution theory.yup.
and No. we didnt evolve from apes.
yes there were dinosaurs. in the bible they stated that there were magnificent creatures with great teeth and everything.
why did dinosaurs not eat up adam and eve? because before the fall of mankind.. man had dominance over the animals. and there was a flood remember? i dont think they got extinct by volcano eruptions. i think when the Earth was destroyed by the flood because of its wickedness, and all but Noah and his family were saved? they all died, hence the fossils. and remember God told Noah to take from each kind of species of animal a female and male?
yeah looks like the dinosaurs were't la. not that God forgot.
because after the fall of mankind, we would lose dominiance over them. dont u think having dinosaurs around defeats the purpose of salvation? -
still havent answered my questionOriginally posted by Icemoon:Ah .. no lah .. law and theory are not defined this way.
A Law is a general observation in nature .. the Theory attempts to explain the Law.
I hope you still remember your secondary school science. Remember the Ideal Gas Law? The Law makes no attempt to explain the science behind PV = NRT. Instead it was the kinetic theory of matter that did. -
one more thing. u gotta stand up fpr what u believe.
the evolutionists arent christians, hence their theories...
human beings date back to dunno how many thousand yrs. God did say he created each species of animals one of its kind.
so there is no evolution... yeah.. its just whether man has discovered those species or not.
n if you're asking whether habitat changes the species? no.. its just that the right species moves into the environment most suitable for them. like for instance.. if black hares discover they survive better in the jungle where they camouflage better, then slowly, they shift there to suit the favourable clamates. its not like. oh. the white hares evolved to black ones to suit the climate better. yeah. God simply created white and black hares thats all.. haha!
and No laaaa.. dinosaurs didnt live a billion yrs ago. like looking at fossils would ever tell u they lived a billion yrs ago? please.. does anyone know what a billion is? haha. the intelligence of humans doesnt go as far as a history gauge. its limited. coz if they say that they lived a billion yrs ago, then all the more it hides evolution. backs it up that it happened over a LONG period of time. and no one can tell. but c'mon. whats happening in the world around us now points more to the evidence of creation more than anything else. yeah..
anyone can PR me if u find biblical truth ..untrue. i dont mind explaining. theres more to it actually..
it'll make sense. like the birth of israel and all. and why muslims fight with christians. and why jews dont get along with christians. its a whole heritage that dates back into history!! =D
>> haha. o level pple study hard!! -
wat qn?Originally posted by vito_corleone:still havent answered my question -
and your source being?Originally posted by girlnextdoor:hello everybody.. just so everyone would like to know?
Darwin admitted on his deathbed
that he regretted coming up with the evolution theory.yup.
and No. we didnt evolve from apes.
yes there were dinosaurs. in the bible they stated that there were magnificent creatures with great teeth and everything.
why did dinosaurs not eat up adam and eve? because before the fall of mankind.. man had dominance over the animals. and there was a flood remember? i dont think they got extinct by volcano eruptions. i think when the Earth was destroyed by the flood because of its wickedness, and all but Noah and his family were saved? they all died, hence the fossils. and remember God told Noah to take from each kind of species of animal a female and male?
yeah looks like the dinosaurs were't la. not that God forgot.
because after the fall of mankind, we would lose dominiance over them. dont u think having dinosaurs around defeats the purpose of salvation?
and he has never said human evolve from apes, he said humans and apes share the same ancestors
proving once again you are just blabberring
and use the bible on he assumption everyone agree to it, not as if its the truth itself...i wonder when will peopel give respect to the process of literature review... -
Haven't sleep?!!?Originally posted by laurence82:and your source being?
and he has never said human evolve from apes, he said humans and apes share the same ancestors
proving once again you are just blabberring
and use the bible on he assumption everyone agree to it, not as if its the truth itself...i wonder when will peopel give respect to the process of literature review...
-
slept after coming in from schOriginally posted by M©+square:Haven't sleep?!!?
now awake already -
Dangerous assumption...Originally posted by girlnextdoor:yes there were dinosaurs. in the bible they stated that there were magnificent creatures with great teeth and everything.
why did dinosaurs not eat up adam and eve? because before the fall of mankind.. man had dominance over the animals. and there was a flood remember? i dont think they got extinct by volcano eruptions. i think when the Earth was destroyed by the flood because of its wickedness, and all but Noah and his family were saved? they all died, hence the fossils. and remember God told Noah to take from each kind of species of animal a female and male?
yeah looks like the dinosaurs were't la. not that God forgot.
because after the fall of mankind, we would lose dominiance over them. dont u think having dinosaurs around defeats the purpose of salvation? -
create havoc ahhhOriginally posted by laurence82:slept after coming in from sch
now awake already -
havoc my second name?Originally posted by M©+square:create havoc ahhh
lolz
no lar, it depend on who want me to create havoc
i dont create havoc on people who are never in the loop anyway... -
Looking out for girlnextdoor?Originally posted by laurence82:havoc my second name?
lolz
no lar, it depend on who want me to create havoc
i dont create havoc on people who are never in the loop anyway...
The next possible contender. 
Cheers! -
nah, the way she write..forget it, just now i got trouble reading her posts...Originally posted by M©+square:Looking out for girlnextdoor?
The next possible contender.
Cheers!
If you are talking abt the number of sensible christians who can make sense out of everything they see and learn, the number is that few
why bother with the bigger number of idiots? -
Wah!!!Originally posted by laurence82:nah, the way she write..forget it, just now i got trouble reading her posts...
If you are talking abt the number of sensible christians who can make sense out of everything they see and learn, the number is that few
why bother with the bigger number of idiots?
MC tiam tiam....
Cheers! -
go sleep lar....Originally posted by M©+square:Wah!!!
MC tiam tiam....
Cheers! -
Later la...Originally posted by laurence82:go sleep lar....
It's true that there are believers to will shoot their supposed 'knowledge' out and expect all to share the same sentiments.
should i read this thread from Page 1?
Cheers -
Well, i am not saying either one theory is wrong, i would believe more in a creation followed by evolution processOriginally posted by M©+square:Later la...
It's true that there are believers to will shoot their supposed 'knowledge' out and expect all to share the same sentiments.
should i read this thread from Page 1?
Cheers
but the way she said it, maciam like fairy tale like that....than something that comes out from a scientist's research or the bible... -
I actually read the whole thread@!!!!!!Originally posted by laurence82:Well, i am not saying either one theory is wrong, i would believe more in a creation followed by evolution process
but the way she said it, maciam like fairy tale like that....than something that comes out from a scientist's research or the bible... v -
piangz....>.Originally posted by M©+square:I actually read the whole thread@!!!!!! v
and what sense u made out of it? -
has evolution been confirmed as a solid, true fact.Originally posted by Icemoon:wat qn? -
has creation as expounded by christians been confirmed as a solid true fact?Originally posted by vito_corleone:has evolution been confirmed as a solid, true fact. -
argue all you want, but its still not a proven fact.
According to biology, it is really much a scientific fact tat much of their studies is based on evolution. I just find it strange tat your only argument is tat evolution is named as "theory" and insist on your definition of "theory" instead of the definition made by the scientific field.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
and for darwin last minute confession
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/darwin-deathbed.html
There is a story that Charles Darwin (1809-1882), English naturalist and developer of the theories of evolution through natural and sexual selection, recanted his life's work and agnosticism and accepted Christianity on his deathbed. It has been circulating through evangelical publications and broadcasts for many years. The story originated with Lady Hope (a.k.a. Elizabeth Reid Cotton, widow of Admiral of the Fleet Sir James Hope), an evangelist in Darwin's neighborhood of Downe, England. She said in a 1915 speech to a Moody evangelical school in East Northfield, Ma., that on his deathbed Darwin had been reading the Epistle to the Hebrews. Supposedly, he wished for singing and worship at his home, regretted that his evolutionary "speculations" were taken so seriously and had caused such evil, and that he accepted the Christian scheme of "salvation." The story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner and has been in circulation ever since.
The evidence shows that the story is not true. Lady Hope was not present at the deathbed of Darwin. The multiple independent accounts of his death, written by those who were there, make no mention of it. His children who were there at his death wrote articles and letters that specifically refuted the recantation and conversion story. Lady Hope did show such detailed knowledge of Darwin's home and estate that she must have visited Darwin at some time late in his life, though not at his deathbed. Darwin himself was disturbed with the misuses "Social Darwinism" made of his theories. He thought that Christianity was good for common people, though not for himself and other educated men. Darwin was revising his theories in the latter part of his life, to take new information into account, though he did not doubt that evolution had occurred, only how it had happened. Lady Hope probably heard all of this in a visit to Darwin late in his life, and conflated it imaginatively into a deathbed recantation!
and for the other part of girlnextdoor reply... it really isn't, lets say, unscientific since she offer nothing except her own beliefs. Every religion can claim why men was formed. But obviously only one or all of them r false. The important thing is to prove it.