Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by Vitchilo

 

Im so glad you are open minded enough to lable those who believe in creation as "loonies" lol

Just ignore those type of people they have "Pride" written all over them and are foaming from the mouth with arrogance. On the contrary i think its much more bizzare to say we evolved from apes when there are still apes roaming around the jungle in south america.

reply to post by Gorman91


Wow.

Gorman, i thought you were more..well just more than that reply implies.

You realise you're sounding like 'you know who' don't you...not as far gone, but treading in his footsteps all the same.

You're opinion and interpretation of what may or may not have been is just as valid as mine.

I'll say that and leave it there i think.

Thanks for the reply.

Replace the term Nature with God

Originally posted by A boy in a dress
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

 

I would save you Skeptic.
You're the one who keeps a cool head amongst all this.

So would i ABIAD,

In fact, i'd offer a helping hand to anyone in this thread or on this forum if they were in need and in front of me, even 'you know who'.

Not sure it would be accepted from someone 'unworthy' though.

reply to post by spikey


You realize you are talking to someone who believes in both the biblical accounts of Genesis and the natural evolutionary biology process at the same time?

reply to post by SLAYER69


Talk about brainwashing.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by intrepid

 

I forget if Lot was related or not, but the covenant was for Abraham's descendants.

I just checked. Lot was Abraham's nephew.

As to the rest I could show you many instances where god punished masses, not individuals. Hell, this episode alone. The Sodomites and the Gomorrahans. Jericho anyone?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


How can you criticize evolution when you are ignorant of what it actually states? Humans and modern apes have a common ancestor. Due to various environmental factors this species had a divergent evolution. In some areas where it resided certain characteristics were more important than other, whereas in other areas other characteristics might have been perceived as being useful. This then lead to different species. One of those species is Homo sapiens. As for being Prideful, I'd go back and read some of your own posts. Just because you're Christian doesn't mean that you stop committing sin.

reply to post by spikey


He and I are not far off. But he thinks that if it's not mentioned in the bible, it must be evil/wrong/heresy. I only look for what IS mentioned. Everything else is open for negotiation.

I'll admit that when it comes to war, I am brutally savage. I don't believe in war crimes, because I think war is a crime. I don't even really believe in morals beyond not having sex with everyone because in the Bible, morals are never mentioned beyond not going and having sex with everyone.

It's complicated to how I view the world because I reject so much of what is normal, and what is unspeakable.

What I know is God knows more than me. And if an area was so bad, so unbelievably evil, that the only solution to stop their corruption of the land was their total elimination, I would not entirely be against that. Of course, such actions are reserved only for such groups that make tolerance impossible. No offence to RG, but he's borderline in that group and if it was the year 1000 BC and he the leader of a community, and I was ordered to slay it, I cannot honestly say I would feel remorse, for such individuals corrupt the land, prevent tolerance, and absolutely do not benefit humanity. If his faith truly is so, then what am I to feel guilty over?

It sounds ugly, disgusting, and wrong....because it is. The fact that it is wrong, however, does not mean it is off limits, should such a nation rise to power and seek to force such mindsets over us all.

In peace, I am Christian. God help me if I ever go to war.

reply to post by intrepid


But I told you. Got only does so when the entire community has become destroyed. When there is no individual left with good in them. He says so.

And, nephew ain't from his "loins".

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

So, you're going to go ahead an use Humphrey's work as your basis for a young Earth? Are you really sure you want to do that? I mean he even has numerous young Earth Creationists criticizing his work. If you want to read an essay that draws together all of the criticisms of Humphrey's work here's one for you.

Dr. Humphreys' Young-Earth Helium Diffusion "Dates": Numerous Fallacies Based on Bad Assumptions and Questionable Data

edit on 30-8-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

Sorry, i decline to read anything from the talkorigins.org website. And even if i did i am not a scientist so i could not fully understand what the scientific formulas ment. I trust YEC science over secularism any day though.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


No, what you're saying is you only trust science that agrees with your world view. Which in turn, isn't scientific.

If you cannot trust God to supply proof of himself and his ways in the world he created, then you are denying his word.

reply to post by playswithmachines


Then... the whole story could have been about being isolated with one's belief.
The masses who doubt -yet fear a belief of another, may reach for radical
means of protecting themselves. Jonah was tossed overboard because the crew
of the boat believed him when he said that the storm would abate if he was tipped
over.
The Sailors threw cargo over and such -which showed a tolerence to keeping a life
-rather than gambling on a faith. But finally, to save their own skins... (a trait common
in all animals)... poor Jonah did a half-pike & a double-twist into the choppy waters.

Did Jonah 'go-it alone' in his faith and leave his peers?

The Whale... that Leviathan from the waves, could be the hopelessness or doubt one
feels has their faith is tested... 'will the Big-Fella' come through for me?'
Finally -and if that faith is strong enough, we are 'regurgitated' back into society with
our beliefs are steeled and honed to steer us through life.
That faith is eased and can be stomached by the majority now, the ranting is over.

The huge mammal moves on to see who else needs saving from the unknown deep!

Job-Jobbed!! next?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Replace the term Nature with God

Once one removes the trappings of religion, the perfumes and the bells, the people in the funny smocks who talk of the amazing complexity of the Universe and how it happened have much in common.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Talk about brainwashing.

Am I the one regurgitating the same tired old dogma here?

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Define "Agnostic"

Nope.

Sorry. I believe you're a bit swifter than that.
I'll use whatever definition YOU choose and I'll work a reply from that that will logically make sense.

Bish, I said define Agnostic!!
-beats you with a trout-

ok, thing is, I am an atheist
I am also an agnostic. an agnostic simply defines what sort of theist or atheist I am...its not a new thing unto itself.
Agnostic is to atheist what red is to apple...its a description...an adjective...it means no knowledge of...then what..

You can be agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist (which I suspect is what your trying to enquire about), or a gnostic theist (like a fundy).

A agnostic theist is probably the most represented amongst the not religious but spiritual types...meaning they don't really know, but they suspect there is a deity of some order...could be the bible one, or some hindu god, etc...ultimately something with its own consciousness that is far above themselves...but they don't buy religion.

Its sort of a safetynet of belief while allowing to pick and choose...some suggest its the most viable way to maintain rational belief in a age where belief is akin to superstition...some others would say its being a non-committed wimp whom hates discussing religion due to poor understanding of the subject and no inclination to study further...

Personally I don't mind agnostic theists...wish the religious people were more on their level as they still hold onto common sense..with them I simply have a mild disagreement...almost trivial. its the gnostics I tend to grind my teeth on...even a gnostic atheist annoys the hell out of me...like somehow they have supreme knowledge that there is no deity(s) whatsoever...they know matter of factly and for all time...both sides of the gnostic's annoy the crap out of me...

So, you asked what agnostics think about the survey..well, read over my posts

or were you specifically meaning agnostic theists?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

No, what you're saying is you only trust science that agrees with your world view. Which in turn, isn't scientific.

If you cannot trust God to supply proof of himself and his ways in the world he created, then you are denying his word.

edit on 30-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Excuse me? Of course i except science that fits with my world view, that is the exact thing Secularist's do, this is not a secret. And you know nothing of God's word if you did you would trust it and not rely on the theory's of MAN. What you believe in is a heresy and is not biblical at all.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by intrepid

 

But I told you. Got only does so when the entire community has become destroyed. When there is no individual left with good in them. He says so.

And, nephew ain't from his "loins".

edit on 30-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Circular thinking that doesn't stand to logic. Seems god needs a better spin doctor than he's had for the last 6000 years. Because he looks damn hypocritical to me, if he exists. I'm reserving judgement on that.

I was blown away by the survey results and strongly disagree with it. I very much believe that a supernatural being was involved in the evolutionary process. In other words man did not evolve from a primordial soup via some intermediate biological entity to what he is today. There was interference.
Let's look at man first. Man aparently originated as a primate and evolved into a cro-magnan man and neandrethal and though gradual evolution became what he is today. There is still a missing archaeological link in the fossil record that is missing. The closest we have come is Lucy found by Dr. Leakey in Africa. Could this suggest that genetic experimentation by an alien race visiting this planet resulted in modern man as Sitchen and others suggest. In other words an alien race might, through genetic manipulation, splice their DNA into a creature existing on earth. The DNA record does show a sudden change some 400k years ago. This of course would explain why there is missing link in the fossil record. If this were the case it begs the question as to who created the alien race.
We as an intelligent and somewhat evolved species have not been able to create the simplest life in the laboratory from primordial soups consisting of amino acids and artifical lighting or any other process as a matter of fact. If we look at human physiology we are looking at something extremely complex and in my opion too complicated to have been created by random processes. For example, we are injured and a whole series of biological systems are activated. We are bitten by an insect and a foreign substance is injected to the body, suddenly killer cells are put into action to destroy the invader. We are seriously hurt. Our body automatically responds in a variety of ways. We lose blood and the body creates a craving for liquids to replace the missing blood; the body goes into shock to preserve energy or even a coma. When we are cut the blood coagulates and new tissue is automatically generated without conscious intervention. This is intelligent design.
There is nothing in the fossil record to show how exo-skeletion animals evolved into creatures with internal skeletons. There has also been periods where there has been a sudden explosion in life forms or a mass extinction and then are repopulating of the planet.
How to you explain a planet positioned at exactly the correct distance from a star to permit the evolution of life. The planet has an atmosphere to burn up all but the largest meteorites and retain oxygen for life. Plants form a synergistic relationship with animal life. Eat the proper plants and you are healthy for life. Natural plants compliment our biological processes unlike GMO foods. Many plants take the carbon dioxide that we breathe and convert it into oxygen. Water freezes at 32 deg f. This keeps marine life protected below ice in the winter and helps to direct warm water from the equator to polar regions to help moderate climate and make a large percentage of land masses habitable. Also the movement of the planet in such a way as to warm the southern hemisphere part of the year and the northern hemisphere in another part of year; is this too a coincidence.
If you consider the way our planet is constructed 80% water and it's orbital motion it is unlikely it is an accident. If you superimpose on this, the simbiosis between the plant and animal life and the complexity of each. All biological matter is too complex for us with our biology and chemistry to replicate then I submit to you that this is evidence of intelligent design. If you truly believe that there is nothing strange about random biological processes creating such complex biological diversity that we at our present point in evolution cannot re-create, I suggest you take all of your money and put it into a Las Vegas slot machine. The statistical odds of winning the big jackpot are better than the present diversity and evolution of life being a completely random biological process. If all this is random then you should feel confident in taking home a ton of money from Vegas.
I do believe that there is some evolution of animal and plant species as evidenced by life in the Gallapagos for example. As environments, climates, and food sources change animals and plants must evolove or adapt or perish. For example, if I were an evolutionist I would believe that all plant and animal species would try to evolve in a way that they become undesireable to preditors. Evolution is too simple a concept to explain many of the questions that I mention here. For this reason I believe that there is a omnipotent intelligent creator in charge. Unfortunately I did not have an opportunity to participate in the survey.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


And there we have it. Your entire belief in YEC is based on ignorance. You actually refuse to read science that proves your YEC "science" wrong. How is that being open minded or enlightened? You are willfully choosing to ignore evidence to the contrary because it contradicts your beliefs. You are doing the exact opposite of denying ignorance, you are gladly welcoming it with open arms. I fail to see how you can claim that we haven't looked at the facts when all of your information if propaganda coming from Creationist sources. I'm sure most of those arguing with you have looked at both sides of the argument and have drawn the conclusion that actually makes logical sense. One of us even used to be a YEC until he took the blinders off and actually looked at what both sides were saying. You have been hypocritical throughout this thread, but this just takes the cake.