What do you believe in? Evolution or creationism?

[CoDer]

coder.....tell us how to prove something that don't exist..

speaking in tongues is not acceptable....anybody can fake that

Hahahahaha... Atheist ako dati city, kaya na addict ako sa Theory of Evolution. Animal Behavior, its Social Order and motivators. Origin of Mans knowledge, diversity in cultural behavior, advance ancient civilization, Natural Selection, Technology. etc... etc... etc...

I am now born again Christian, and yet hindi ko pa na experience and speaking in tongues, heck even faith can be faked. Daming yumaman dahil dyan.

I am not here to prove that God exist, because I cannot. The best thing I can do is preach to you His word. But since you don’t believe in God, there’s no point in even trying it. But that's not what we’re discussing here. We are here for the sake of science. And speaking of science it is only proper that we dwell on the Theory of Evolution.

If science cannot prove the existence of the spirit or ghost. Then why should it bother proving the existence of Heaven and Hell.

I am not discounting the physical evidence that science unearthed that proves the existence of prehistoric creature. But you have to remember that most in the Theory of Evolution are mere hypothesis not verified by complete physical evidence and data. Just because paleontologist unearthed the denture remains of the oldest primate is enough for us to believe that that is where we came from?

But then I am not saying the specie did not evolve. In fact, they did. The only problem for those that do not subscribe to the argument of creator is that, if the Natural Selection is your basis on the Evolution of Modern Man. Then how come other Modern Primate specifically chimpanzee our closest relative did not develop the same consciousness, awareness, and reason that we have.

Isn’t possible that we conclude through deduction that other specie could have developed the same consciousness of Modern Man. Considering the fact the science claim that human came fro prehistoric primate with very small brain and that we share the same timeframe with other specie that evolve to where it is now.

True life form evolved, but there must be someone who engineered all of these. To the believer, it is God. Otherwise, on the argument of Natural Selection one can conclude that Modern Human is just a good looking chimpanzee, because our physical form is already perfect as far as Natural Selection there’s no need for us to develop cognitive ability. Heck, even monkeys survived.

And please don’t use animal behavior as an argument on consciousness because animal simply behave according to motivators not reason.

[CtrlAltDel]

Is it possible that this capability of humans to have faith on something not proven by scientific method is just one of the many myriad and mysterious ways of the human brain? Last I heard, even scientists admit the possibility that we may never know the full extent of the power of the human brain.

While some people may call faith in God the blind obedience of the uninformed, I believe it is possible that this power to have faith is a builtin, high level thought-process unique only to humans. And the beauty of it is that we can choose to have faith in God or not. Since I believe in God, however the brain functions would still serve his purpose.

I am not saying you're any less or more intelligent based on your unbelief or faith in God. What I'm saying is, look, we're all intelligent beings. But it's obvious that some of us are entirely comfortable with the notion of a Creator, while others dismiss it unless supported by evidence observed on nature. This capability for dual, opposing thoughts must be part of the mysteries locked deep in our brain.

It's just a thought. And of course, I have no scientific-method proof of this possibility.

OT. I find this as an interesting quote from an atheist:
When asked whether he believe in God, Sonny Barger, the outspoken Hells Angels founder, "No. I believe something big is happening. I'm not sure what it is."
http://pdr.autono.net/SonnyBarger.html

[CtrlAltDel]

... If science cannot prove the existence of the spirit or ghost. Then why should it bother proving the existence of Heaven and Hell...

One other thing guys. I don't think that facts and truths go together.
If you want to know facts, ask the scientists.
If you want to know the truth, between Creationism and Evolution, beyond any reasonable doubt, go see your lawyer.

[CoDer]

One other thing guys. I don't think that facts and truths go together.
If you want to know facts, ask the scientists.
If you want to know the truth, between Creationism and Evolution, beyond any reasonable doubt, go see your lawyer.

:bwahaha:

[CoDer]

One interesting site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

please read.

[CoDer]

Eto pa.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

Excerpt from the site.

Common Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution can occur without morphological change; and morphological change can occur without evolution. Humans are larger now than in the recent past, a result of better diet and medicine. Phenotypic changes, like this, induced solely by changes in environment do not count as evolution because they are not heritable; in other words the change is not passed on to the organism's offspring. Phenotype is the morphological, physiological, biochemical, behavioral and other properties exhibited by a living organism. An organism's phenotype is determined by its genes and its environment. Most changes due to environment are fairly subtle, for example size differences. Large scale phenotypic changes are obviously due to genetic changes, and therefore are evolution.

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains. Samples of the most successful strains from the culture were taken at a variety of times. In later competition experiments, each strain would outcompete the immediately previously dominant type in a culture. However, some earlier isolates could outcompete strains that arose late in the experiment. Competitive ability of a strain was always better than its previous type, but competitiveness in a general sense was not increasing. Any organism's success depends on the behavior of its contemporaries. For most traits or behaviors there is likely no optimal design or strategy, only contingent ones. Evolution can be like a game of paper/scissors/rock.


The Pattern of Macroevolution

Evolution is not progress. The popular notion that evolution can be represented as a series of improvements from simple cells, through more complex life forms, to humans (the pinnacle of evolution), can be traced to the concept of the scale of nature. This view is incorrect.

All species have descended from a common ancestor. As time went on, different lineages of organisms were modified with descent to adapt to their environments. Thus, evolution is best viewed as a branching tree or bush, with the tips of each branch representing currently living species. No living organisms today are our ancestors. Every living species is as fully modern as we are with its own unique evolutionary history. No extant species are "lower life forms," atavistic stepping stones paving the road to humanity.

A related, and common, fallacy about evolution is that humans evolved from some living species of ape. This is not the case -- humans and apes share a common ancestor. Both humans and living apes are fully modern species; the ancestor we evolved from was an ape, but it is now extinct and was not the same as present day apes (or humans for that matter). If it were not for the vanity of human beings, we would be classified as an ape. Our closest relatives are, collectively, the chimpanzee and the pygmy chimp. Our next nearest relative is the gorilla.

If not for the vanity of human being. Hahahahahahahaaaa....

[CoDer]

Eto pa.

Various Interpretations of Genesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

Exerpt from the site

5) Theology uber alles. The question of the historical truth of the account is of no importance whatsoever. All that matters is the theological truths it contains. A different formulation would be that the Bible should only be expected to be reliable in matters of theological importance; it's not intended to be a science or history textbook, and hence need not be entirely accurate in those areas.

[theveed]

This is the thing about creationism vs evolution that makes me question the creationists...

There's a big difference kasi with the two concepts in how their respective supporters argue their cases.

Evolution - supporters ACCEPT THAT IT'S A THEORY... By that, we also accept that whatever scientists have discovered, it's not the end, it's not finite and there are more questions unanswered, which other scientists CONTINUE to pursue.

Creationist - Genesis, that's it, final, closed book, no more arguments, no more questions allowed.

If the Vatican (guys who live and breath the bible daily) believes and supports the continuing research for evolution, I find it amusing that creationists slams the door shut.

And like what CoDer posted last, if there are varios interpretations of Genesis, why can't one interpretation prove that it's a nice mythological story and not fact of life since there are no tangible proofs of those things actually happened?

Bible should only be expected to be reliable in matters of theological importance; it's not intended to be a science or history textbook, and hence need not be entirely accurate in those areas.

But creationists expects believers to accept it as closed-book fact? Contradicting, if you ask me.

My issue with creationist isn't whether or not Genesis is true, my beef is how creationists use additional evolution theories trying to DISPROVE evolution... You must understand that Archeology and Human Tree are another scientific theories that helps Evolution research.

[CoDer]

Bible should only be expected to be reliable in matters of theological importance; it's not intended to be a science or history textbook, and hence need not be entirely accurate in those areas.

But creationists expects believers to accept it as closed-book fact? Contradicting, if you ask me.

I see, there are different Creationism beliefs; the fundamentals, the scientifc, the modern.

Fundamentals interpret the Bible literally. So that means if it is written that God created the world in 6 days that means in 6 days in our calendar. Funny, it is then only proper for a Christian fundamentalist not to eat apples because that's the reason why Adam and Eve sinned against God. Dito kalimitan pumapasok ang kulto.

In fact when a Pastor friend told me that Evolution is the works of evil. I corrected him; I told him that God created all of this. God did not enlighten a believer to write the exact detail in the Bible, because that is the purpose of Gods Word which is the Bible and Jesus. Evolution has no saving value in a believers life.

Scientific Creationism is full of crap. Imagine an alien with superior intelligence and technology created us.

The modern belief of creationism is that God is the Engineer of Evolution. That means living things evolved to where it is now according to Gods plan.

The biggest problem of the Theory of Evolution is that, why is it that only human developed cognitive skills?

If your argument is Natural Selection, then we might be seeing Chimpanzee driving Honda today!

Don't even think about Gorillas driving Hondas!

[theveed]

Nah, Gorillaz will be driving Humvees and Escalades...

[CoDer]

Nah, Gorillaz will be driving Humvees and Escalades...

hmmpp! Sosyal naman yang mga gorilyang yan!

[theveed]

Bling bling daw :D Sama tingin nya sa mga Orangutans, naka SiR na Passion Orange kasi.

[CoDer]

Bling bling daw :D Sama tingin nya sa mga Orangutans, naka SiR na Passion Orange kasi.

:bwahaha:

[city]

If science cannot prove the existence of the spirit or ghost. Then why should it bother proving the existence of Heaven and Hell.

why would science bother in proving something that don;t exist?

True life form evolved, but there must be someone who engineered all of these.

This is a very interesting line. But you don't stop at who engineered all of this, because the one who engineered it must have someone who engineered him..and it goes on and on un-ending...Meaning..this claim is invalid.

And please don’t use animal behavior as an argument on consciousness because animal simply behave according to motivators not reason.

are you saying only humans have consciousness? only humans reason?...as niky have explained, the only difference between man and animals is language...we have a highly developed form of communication. If we can learn the languages of dolphins, whales, elephants, monkeys, ants, bees etc. i'm sure you will discover how intelligent these mamals are and they reason with each other.

animals mate, eat, drink, work, cry, kill, mourn, play, hate, think....do you see any difference in us humans? Humans behave just like animals.

[CoDer]

are you saying only humans have consciousness? only humans reason?...as niky have explained, the only difference between man and animals is language...we have a highly developed form of communication. If we can learn the languages of dolphins, whales, elephants, monkeys, ants, bees etc. i'm sure you will discover how intelligent these mamals are and they reason with each other.

animals mate, eat, drink, work, cry, kill, mourn, play, hate, think....do you see any difference in us humans? Humans behave just like animals.

Hahahaha.... and oh chimpanzee invented Honda. Enough with that argument. Hahahahaaa...

[wren]

okay boys...tama na. sumasakit na migraine ko.

[city]

In fact when a Pastor friend told me that Evolution is the works of evil. I corrected him; I told him that God created all of this. God did not enlighten a believer to write the exact detail in the Bible, because that is the purpose of Gods Word which is the Bible and Jesus. Evolution has no saving value in a believers life.

really? god did not enlighten a believer to write the exact detail in the bible?...i'm assuming this is just your opinion right...because last time I heard the bible is god inspired, word of god, infallible, inerrant, holiest of all books...and to think that god did not enlighten..means he purposely did it to confuse? or leave his creatures to solve a puzzle? why? to surprise? to fight over which is right and which is wrong? to guess things?

bro..can you enlighten us on this matter?

[CoDer]

really? god did not enlighten a believer to write the exact detail in the bible?...i'm assuming this is just your opinion right...because last time I heard the bible is god inspired, word of god, infallible, inerrant, holiest of all books...and to think that god did not enlighten..means he purposely did it to confuse? or leave his creatures to solve a puzzle? why? to surprise? to fight over which is right and which is wrong? to guess things?

bro..can you enlighten us on this matter?

Hahahahaha... ayoko na.

It's either you believe in Him or not, alang gray area. Ano ba naman yang argumentong yan.

Ikot... ikot... ikot... hangang sa mahilo.

[mazdamazda]

IMO.

this is too pety an issue to get too worked up with.

so what if another person doesn't believe in the Bible, scientific methods, creationism, evolution, etc?

[city]

Hahahahaha... ayoko na.

It's either you believe in Him or not, alang gray area. Ano ba naman yang argumentong yan.

Ikot... ikot... ikot... hangang sa mahilo.

hehehe....nakakapagod no...thanks for being patient bro....

OT: you're catholic before then atheist then born again?..just wanna know bro...ako catholic then atheist.