What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[oldblue]

mahirap talaga paniwalaan yan evolution. not really bec. we evolved from organisms or monkeys or even dinosaurs and stuff but bec. its too arrogant for us humans to think that we are the final stage in the evolution ...

malay nyo baka 1M years from now eh muka na tayong cling-on hahahaha ... yun pala final stage

[Psalm136:2]

The study of creation doesn't just move around the story of Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, etc. It goes beyond human understanding, knowledge, comprehension, logic, reasoning, etc.

Kaya nga po hanggang ngayon e theory parin ang evolution (maski anong tanda na ng mga nahuhukay nilang fossils), di parin ma-prove ng science where we really came from or how did we come into being. If we stopped from evolving, can science prove this as well? Ang tao ay laging magpupursiging magpakagaling at magpakatalino, who knows what we might end up one day.

Bottomline is, we are all made of the smallest particle, we call DNA. Now where did this DNA originated or came from? Nobody knows. Dito po pumapasok ang faith. The Bible doesn't have to prove itself to science or to anything for that matter, otherwise magiging textbook or reference book sya.

My philosophy is: I believe in God, and that I have faith in His every Word.
Now if I die and God doesn't really exist and death is the end of everything, then fine, at least I believed in something, walang nawala.
Now what if God does exist and I didn't believe, derecho ako dun sa baba, diba talo ako. Pinalampas ko yung opportunity.

Just my 2cents.

[woulfe27]

questions lang lang sa creationists:

1. kung naniniwala kayo sa bible na na kayang bumuhay ng patay ni jesus christ, does that mean na naniniwala din kayo na kayang tumakbo ng one year non-stop ni hercules in pursuit of a golden deer?

2. kung naniniwala kayo sa bible that jesus chist can walk on water, does that mean na naniniwala kayo na pinatay nga ni hercules ang Lernean hydra with nine heads?

Siyempre ang sagot nyo e "Greek mythology lang naman yan." Pero you're forgetting that it's only now that we call Hercules a myth. To ancient Greeks, he was the son of God (Zeus), and when he died his soul went to Mt. Olympus. Ancient Greeks built temples and other places of worship in honor of their gods and goddesses. Now we consider them as part of "Greek mythology."

Now some of us are saying "Aren't the ancient Greeks a crazy lot? They even believed that a man can run non-stop for a year?"

Hindi kaya 2,000 years from now e meron namang subject sa college na "Christian mythology?" And 2000 years from now, college studes will be saying "Aren't the ancient Christians a crazy lot? They even believed that a man can walk on water?"

Man invented god kse merong mga tamad na tao nung araw na hindi kayang magconduct ng research to explain the laws of nature. For example, there was a god named Vulcan, kse ancient people saw a mountain erupting and they didn't know the explanation behind it. So one of them said "It's the work of god, and this god's name is Vulcan." But now that man knows how volcanoes are formed, does he still worship Vulcan?

Ang hirap kse sa creationist, sa sobrang tamad o kakulangan ng talino para magresearch, nagiimbento na agad ng sagot. Hindio nila ma-explain and "hows and whys" ng universe so it must be the work of a supreme being. Hindi nila alam kung saan nanggaling ang homo sapiens, then they must have been created by God. And they reached these conclusions without even having dug a fossil or used a telescope (in the case of Galileo vs. the Catholic Church).

The scientific man has a different approach: "Teka muna, hanap muna tayo ng ebidensya. Mahirap yang wala pang ebidensya e me conclusions na. At hindi sapat na ebidensya ang isang libro even if it was written thousands of years ago. Anybody could have written a book like that."

If Homer, the author of Greek classics such as Oddysey and Iliad, had written the phrase "These are the words of God" on the preface of his books, I'm sure madami ngayon ke Zeus pa rin sumasamba.

Kaya tuloy dito sa Pilipinas, merong mga towns na tatlo oa apat ang churches, pero wala kahit isang hospital. Kaya pag nadisgrasya ka, pari o madre ang mag-oopera sa yo. You wouldn't want that to happen to you, would you?


The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive ... but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born.
-- Mark Twain, from Albert Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain, a Biography (1912), quoted from Barbara Schmidt, ed., "Mark Twain Quotations, Newspaper Collections, & Related Resources"

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain, Following the Equator, ch. 12, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" (1897)

[doublea]

nagmula sa lupa...magbabalik ng kusa...

[woulfe27]

Bottomline is, we are all made of the smallest particle, we call DNA. Now where did this DNA originated or came from? Nobody knows. Dito po pumapasok ang faith.

You're right. Nobody knows....... as of now. E di hayaan natin na mag-conduct ng research ang mga biologists and paleontologists para malaman kung saan nga "TUNAY" na nanggaling ang DNA. Hindi yung mag-iimbento tayo ng sagot: "Hindi ko alam kung saan galing ang DNA, so sigurado gawa ng Diyos yan."

Walang pinagkaiba yan sa sinabi ng mga ancient Romans: "Hindi ko alam kung bakit me mga bundok na pumuputok at nagbubuga ng lava at apoy, so sigurado gawa ng Diyos yan, at ang name nya ay Vulcan." Ayun, ilang libong taon silang sumamba ke Vulcan, at me human sacrifices pa sila to appease Vulcan para hindi nya paputukin ang mga volcanoes.

"Faith is believing in what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

[woulfe27]

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/v/vulcan.html

[oldblue]

I read somewhere before something like this

"if you are seeking for answers, follow the wars" -

WW1, WW2, Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Falklands, Bosnia, Middle East, Afghanistan and last but not the least, Iraq. They're all interconnected. And also, some groups believe that the Garden of Eden that Genesis is talking about, was actually a place in ancient Iraq.

[BoyFerrari]

Iba kasi yung arguments when we are talking about "organic" evolution, like single cells evolving into complex multi-cells like humans today.

But what about "consciousness"? Are the aspects of human life (for example, your love for your son or daughter) just a complex logical analysis outputed by your brain? Or is it a manifestation of a living soul controlling your organic body?

[laracroft]

maybe some of you are right.

God didn't opt to go into the details
of how He created everything when
He inspired the author to write the
first book of the PENTATEUCH, as He
operates on a higher plane than us.
maybe God just wanted us to know
WHO created the world, not HOW.

the bible, while containing history,
isn't about history. God isn't obliged to
give us a step-by-step account into how
He created everything or how He came to
being. (will we be able to understand it anyway?
for example, who here can grasp or fathom the meaning of ETERNITY?)
the bible is about Jesus Christ!
through the history it presents,
it gives us a glimpse into
why man needs a saviour.

"there is a God-shaped hole in all of us"
that no amount of reasoning and logic can fill.
only God can.

[rj_tim]

AFAIK, some of the greatest scientists the world has ever known (Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Benjamin Franklin, Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, etc.) were devout Christians, and therefore creationists (they believed that God created the universe). It seems that Sir Isaac Newton's being a devout Christian is KNOWN BY A FAR LESS DEGREE as his being a great scientist.


Sir Isaac Newton and the Bible.
By Professor Arthur B. Anderson.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isaac Newton was the greatest scientist who has ever lived. It is, in fact, generally accepted that he is the greatest scientist who ever will live, since no one, no matter how brilliant, will ever again be in such a unique historical position.

Isaac Newton was born on Christmas day in 1642 and died in 1727. His most famous work, Philosophiae Nauralis Principia Mathematica (commonly called the Principia), was published in 1687. His discoveries span all aspects of the physical world with special emphasis on experimental and theoretical physics and chemistry and applied mathematics. He invented virtually the entire science of mechanics and most of the science of optics. During this time he invented such mathematics as he needed or as interested him including the discipline known as calculus.

His (and the world's) greatest scientific work, the Principia, was published only after his friend, Edmund Halley, accidentally learned of the existence of Part I which Isaac Newton had written 10 years earlier and put in a drawer. Halley convinced him to finish Part II and III and allow Halley to publish the work.

Of unequaled mental ability during his entire adult life until his death at age 85, Newton's powers are legendary. It is often told, for example, how later in his life a problem in mathematical physics posed by the great mathematician, Bernoulli, was forwarded to the Royal Society. The problem, to determine the curve of minimum time for a heavy particle to move downward between two given points, had baffled the famous 18th century mathematicians of Europe for over six months. Receiving the problem in the afternoon, Newton solved it before going to bed!

In addition to his scientific work (Newton would have said as a part of his scientific work), he devoted a substantial portion of his enormous energy to the study of the Bible and Biblical texts and history. He read the Bible daily throughout his life and wrote over a million words of notes regarding his study of it.

Isaac Newton believed that the Bible is literally true in every respect. Throughout his life, he continually tested Biblical truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science. He never observed a contradiction. In fact, he viewed his own scientific work as a method by which to reinforce belief in Biblical truth.

He was a formidable Biblical scholar, was fluent in the ancient languages, and had extensive knowledge of ancient history. He believed that each person should read the Bible, and through that reading, establish for himself an understanding of the universal truth it contains.

Only one book of Newton's about the Bible was ever published. In 1733, six years after his death, J. Darby and T. Browne, published Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.

With his prodigious knowledge of ancient history and languages and his unequaled mental powers, Isaac Newton is the best qualified individual in this millennium to have written about the prophecies. His study of the Book of Daniel began at the age of 12 and continued to be a special interest throughout his life. Moreover, he writes of the prophecies with a modesty that indicates that he, himself, is in awe of the words he has been given an opportunity to read.

Isaac Newton concluded that it is intended that Revelation will be understood by very few until near the end of history, the time of judgment, and the beginning of the everlasting kingdom of the Saints of the Most High. Here is an excerpt from that book:

This prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the Scripture of Truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end, and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals: and afterward the two Witnesses prophesy out of it a long time in sackcloth, before they ascend up to heaven in a cloud. All of which is as much as to say, that the prophecies of Daniel and John should not be understood till the time of the end: but that some should prophesy out of it in an afflicted and mournful state for a long time, and that but darkly, so as to convert but few. But in the very end, the Prophecy should be so far interpreted so as to convince many. Then saith Daniel, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

For the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world. The palm-bearing multitude, which came out of this great tribulation, cannot be innumerable out of all nations unless they be made so by the preaching of the Gospel before it comes. There must be a stone cut of the mountain without hands, before it can fall on the toes of the Image, and become a great mountain and fill the earth. An Angel must fly through the midst of heaven with the everlasting Gospel to preach to all nations, before Babylon falls, and the Son of man reaps his harvest. The two prophets must ascend up to heaven in a cloud, before the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of Christ.

'Tis therefore a part of this Prophecy, that it should not be understood before the last age of the world; and therefore it makes for the credit of the Prophecy, that it is not yet understood. But if the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching, as by the great success of late Interpreters it seems to be, we have more encouragement that ever to look into these things.

If the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching, it is for us and our posterity that these words mainly belong: In the time of the end the wise shall understand, but none of the wicked shall understand. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this Prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein
(Daniel XII 4,10, Apoc. i 3).

Sir Isaac Newton and all reputable scientists believed that today's scarred and marred earth was the result of the great Flood. This was the common opinion of the majority of educated people until around the year 1870!!

In conclusion: Sir Isaac Newton was totally correct in his Observations. If the greatest scientist who ever lived had no problem believing the Bible, what excuse will evolutionists, atheists, agnostics, or other so called men of science have on Judgment Day!

[Heretic]

Now what if God does exist and I didn't believe, derecho ako dun sa baba, diba talo ako. Pinalampas ko yung opportunity.

Ang sama namang diyos niyan. Parurusahan ka nang habangbuhay kasi hindi siya pinaniwalaan.

[theveed]

Power tripping ba?

BTW, stay on topic guys, evolution vs creation... Not other facets of the faith/theories (both are pretty much the same to me) for now.

[rj_tim]

Ang sama namang diyos niyan. Parurusahan ka nang habangbuhay kasi hindi siya pinaniwalaan.

Sir, we all deserve punishment because of one reason: our sins (Romans 6:23). But God in His love has sent us His own Son to die in our place so that anyone who believes in Him may have everlasting life (John 3:16).

[niky]

mahirap talaga paniwalaan yan evolution. not really bec. we evolved from organisms or monkeys or even dinosaurs and stuff but bec. its too arrogant for us humans to think that we are the final stage in the evolution ...

malay nyo baka 1M years from now eh muka na tayong cling-on hahahaha ... yun pala final stage

According to evolutionary theory nga, man is transitive, not final. As it is, we retain many vestigial (carried over from previous forms) reflexes and features, as well as behaviours... aggression, homicidal tendencies towards members of other tribes, gluttony/greed (survival instinct unchecked). It's actually Creationism that espouses the idea that man is perfectly formed... which leaves no room for evolution, be it physical, moral or ethical.

According to "The Book of Adam and Eve," a part of the pseudographical texts, Cain had a twin sister named Luluwa which meant beautiful, before Abel and his twin sister Aklia was born. Luluwa was to be bethroted to Abel as per the recommendation of Adam and Eve; this sparked the beginning of Cain's hatred and jealousy towards Abel. When Cain killed Abel, he took Luluwa away.

"The Book of Adam and Eve" made mention of five children: Cain and Luluwa (twins), Abel and Aklia (twins), and of course, Seth. It is an interesting read, as it details the trials and sufferings that Adam and Eve supposedly have undergone when they were stripped of their "godliness."

Errh... and this was in the Bible? I think not. "The Book of Adam and Eve" is a modern document, and if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't true, right? Read through Genesis. There is no mention of any female progeny of Adam and Eve. Just Cain, Abel and Seth.

Again, the fault with Creationism lies in a literal translation of the Bible. It should not be taken as a history of the Universe, merely a record of Jewish understanding of their world at the time. It's no more valid than the creation myth of any other religion.

And if you don't believe evolution is possible because you can't possibly see how such complex organisms can develop from such simple inorganic compounds, then isn't that arrogance in and of itself? Just because I can't understand the processes in building a computer, then building a computer is impossible?. Yes, so is the internet. So is a snowflake. A snowflake has infinite complexity, yet remains symmetrical... it's impossible for me to understand how it happens, so it must be magic.

The "why are there still monkeys" argument doesn't hold water. We never developed from monkeys. Our precursor was merely related to them. Many species we see now are either at the end-point of their evolutionary development (sharks, most reptiles, snakes), but others are not. Pandas have not fully evolved a herbivorous gut, that's why they have to eat so much bamboo, because they still have the gut of a carnivore. Moles still have vestigial eyes, even though they don't need them (they're nearly blind) whereas cave reptiles and fish have no eyes at all. Some lizards who are on their way to becoming true snakes still possess vestigial leg stubs. Ostriches possess vestigial wings. And so on and so forth.

I can understand evolutionary theory, and I can prove it to myself from evidence I can see in the world around me. Other evidence, I may have to take on faith for now, but if I truly wanted to, I could read up, follow the logic chain for each piece of evidence, and come to the same conclusion.

Science is not a faith in the word of others, it is faith in the method of science. A true scientist knows that even if he doesn't understand a certain scientific theory, he can study it until he does.

Whereas Creationists want us to accept that we can't understand anything about the universe and leave it at that.

[Bogeyman]

It's actually Creationism that espouses the idea that man is perfectly formed... which leaves no room for evolution, be it physical, moral or ethical.

The exact same thing I was going to say. Has it not been repeated that God created man "in His image and likeness"? Evolutionists will surely scoff at this assertion, citing that the present human race has a lot of flaws to improve upon.

Several eons into the future, the next generation of human beings might look back at us today and say, "How primitive they are, relying on mechanical means of transport, when we now have the natural ability of flight."

[BlueBimmer]

hmm..Krypton? superman! hehehe sorry singit lang :D

[woulfe27]

God isn't obliged to
give us a step-by-step account into how
He created everything or how He came to
being. (will we be able to understand it anyway?
for example, who here can grasp or fathom the meaning of ETERNITY?)

masyado namang mababa ang tingin ng Diyos mo sa tao, that he felt we wont understand it anyway. that means defective ang tao. e sino ba gumawa sa tao according to creatonists? di ba Diyos? e di defective pala yung method of creation nya?

i don't that BS that when something bad happens people will say "It's God's will, we don't have the right to question his actions." Kung me Diyos nga at ganyan sya ka incompetent, well, we do have all the rights to question his actions, dahil tayo ang naapektuhan ng decisions nya. Tao ang namamatay sa tsunami, lindol, bagyo, at iba pang mga kalamidad, hindi Diyos.

[woulfe27]

BTW, who said Ben Franklin was a devout Christian?

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.
-- Benjamin Franklin, the incompatibility of faith and reason, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)

If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.
-- Benjamin Franklin, An Essay on Toleration

[ts1n1ta]

you guys think too much.

[BlueBimmer]

im with tsinita