What Will Be The Difference In Our Lives If We Dont Believe In God?

[samcoy]

Who are those guys?

Search their names on Google so you can get more details on what they say.

[samcoy]

Please read the page on this link Flying high - Answers in Genesis. It shows why a scientist like Dr Andy McIntosh believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution.

Instead of believing just what other says, do your homework. True faith is based on proofs.

Can you rely on fossil records as evidence of evolution? National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." Consider the implication of that. Their conclusion that evolution took place is based on incomplete evidence.

[marg]

Please read the page on this link Flying high - Answers in Genesis. It shows why a scientist like Dr Andy McIntosh believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution.

Instead of believing just what other says, do your homework. True faith is based on proofs.

According to the Book of Genesis in the Bible:

GOD MADE ANIMALS BEFORE HE MADE MAN:

Genesis 1:25-27
And God made every Animal to their kind, and the Livestock to their kind and all the Creatures that move along the ground... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.

OR.........

GOD MADE ANIMALS AFTER HE MADE MAN

Genesis 2:18-19
And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be Alone; I will make a helper for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every Animal, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.

ANO BA TALAGA???

IF Science was this confused, then we are in TROUBLE.

[Monseratto]

Please read the page on this link Flying high - Answers in Genesis. It shows why a scientist like Dr Andy McIntosh believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution.

Instead of believing just what other says, do your homework. True faith is based on proofs.

Can you rely on fossil records as evidence of evolution? National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." Consider the implication of that. Their conclusion that evolution took place is based on incomplete evidence.

Let's keep up with current events on the stance of the Vatican Church on Darwin's Evolution rather than those of small time so-called Creationist/Protestants/Born Again nuts...

^^^Ayan, pati simbahan katoliko nag sabi di ata plausible yung sinsabi ng iba diyan.

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin -Times Online

February 11, 2009

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin


The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. [size=2]The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.[/size]

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on the Pope’s reference to an “intelligent project” as proof that he favoured their views.

Conceding that the Church had been hostile to Darwin because his theory appeared to conflict with the account of creation in Genesis, Archbishop Ravasi argued yesterday that biological evolution and the Christian view of Creation were complementary.

Marc Leclerc, who teaches natural philosophy at the Gregorian University, said that no scholar could “remain indifferent” to the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth tomorrow. There was, however, “no question of celebrating” it.

The Vatican would “take the measure of an event, which has left its mark for ever on the history of science and has influenced the way we understand our humanity”. The “time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation” of Darwin by the Church, he said.

Professor Leclerc said that too many opponents of Darwin – above all Creationists – had mistakenly claimed that his theories were “totally incompatible with a religious vision of reality”, as did proponents of Intelligent Design.

Darwin’s theories had never been formally condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, Monsignor Ravasi insisted. His rehabilitation had begun as long ago as 1950, when Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans. In 1996 John Paul II said that it was [size=2]“more than a hypothesis”.[/size]

Father Giuseppe Tanzella-Nitti, Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Santa Croce University in Rome, said that Darwin had been anticipated by St Augustine of Hippo. The 4th-century theologian had “never heard the term evolution, but knew that big fish eat smaller fish” and that forms of life had been transformed “slowly over time”. Aquinas had made similar observations in the Middle Ages, he added.

He said it was time that theologians as well as scientists grappled with the mysteries of genetic codes and “whether the diversification of life forms is the result of competition or cooperation between species”. As for the origins of Man, although we shared 97 per cent of our “genetic inheritance” with apes, the remaining 3 per cent “is what makes us unique”, including religion.

“I maintain that the idea of evolution has a place in Christian theology,” Professor Tanzella-Nitti added.

Creationism remains powerful in the US, however, notably among Protestants, and its followers object to evolution being taught in state schools.

The Church of England is seeking to bring Darwin back into the fold with a page on its website paying tribute to his “forgotten” work in his local parish, to illustrate how science and Church need not be at odds. Several pages celebrate Darwin’s “significant scientific progress” to mark his bicentenary and also the 150th anniversary of On the Origin of Species.

The Church wants to correct the impression that Darwin’s relationship with Anglicanism was contentious. The Anglican Church as a whole did not condemn Darwin or his beliefs. It says that although he lost his faith, he did not become antiChurch or antireligious.

[uls]

Flying high - Answers in Genesis

thousands of scientists pero ang i-quo-quote nila yung mga Christian scientist na biased ang view

the scientifuc community doesn't take them seriously

birds are wonderful! insects are wonderful! bats are wonderful! it can't be evolution! it's intelligent design!

ya sure... wonderful nga, coz what he's observing the result of millions of years of natural selection. nature has eliminated all the failed mutations that aren't so wonderful. mutations that caused the organisms NOT to be able to pass their genes to present day

[DigitalAnalog]

Please read the page on this link Flying high - Answers in Genesis. It shows why a scientist like Dr Andy McIntosh believe in Intelligent Design rather than evolution.

Any scientist can propose anything but it takes a consensus for us to start taking them seriously. Consider that 93% of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in God. Even your Answers in Genesis creationist site admits this fact and decries the NAS as being ‘Godless to the core’.

Instead of believing just what other says, do your homework. True faith is based on proofs. Can you rely on fossil records as evidence of evolution? National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor." Consider the implication of that. Their conclusion that evolution took place is based on incomplete evidence.

Can you point me to the link of the article where National Geographic said that? In any case, no one is saying that all the fossil records are 100% complete. It doesn’t have to be 100% complete. Science works by making an observation, creating a hypothesis and then conducting tests to see if the hypothesis can be disproven. To date, evolution has not in any way been challenged as the proper explanation for how modern life came to be in this planet.

Intelligent design is a thinly-veiled disguise of creationism. It is not a proper scientific theory because it raises more questions than it answers. They are saying that life on earth is too complex to have been developed through evolution and natural selection but refuses to acknowledge that the cosmic designer that they are proposing has to be more complex than the life it supposedly created. Who designed the designer? It all goes back to creationism.

Modern life in this planet took more than 3 billion years to develop. Can you even start to imagine the scale of 3 billion years? It took an almost innumerable number of failed attempts before modern species emerged. Also, consider the millions of babies each born with significant congenital diseases that cause them to live short lives filled with intense suffering. These are caused by random genetic mutations caused by flaws with how our DNA is passed on from parent to offspring. If there is a cosmic designer, he must have been a monumental idiot to take 3 billion years and so many failed attempts just to come up with humans who are still dying from biological imperfections. This designer is not only an idiot but evil as well for letting millions of babies suffer congenital and genetic defects through no fault of their own.

‘Intelligent design’ is actually an argument from personal ignorance. I don’t know how this came about maybe an intelligent designer designed it. It’s not scientific because it stops scientific inquiry. ‘Intelligent design’ is also an argument from personal incredulity. I can’t believe man evolved from a common ancestor with apes, we must have been designed by a cosmic creator. There are many things in this universe that we don’t fully understand yet but to try to explain everything through a cosmic designer is a slap in the face of humanity who tries to progress by fully understanding the world around him.

[uls]

example of genetic birth defects: congenital heart disease, blood disorders (like sickle cell), Down syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Science: caused by point mutation, deletion of a gene/genes, extra chromosome/missing chromosome

Religion: God's will

[ess]

example of genetic birth defects: congenital heart disease, blood disorders (like sickle cell), Down syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy

Science: caused by point mutation, deletion of a gene/genes, extra chromosome/missing chromosome

Religion: God's will

It was God's will to imbue the baby with a congenital heart disease because God knows that the baby will one day grow up to overcome the handicap and be a better person... sheesh...
If the person overcomes that problem, then the disease will be a "gift". That's because God has special plans for this person. He will, one day, overcome that disease and discover a cure for cancer and bring about world peace.

If the person fails and dies, oh well... at least the said person will have a special place in heaven.

[uls]

you don't have to go dig for fossils

natural selection is observable. it's an ongoing process

in Africa, researchers discovered many people have a mutation that causes sickle cell disease

sickle cell disease is caused by a genetic mutation in red blood cells

why wasnt that a "bad" gene selected out of the population?

it was discovered that people with the sickle cell gene live in areas that have high incidence of malaria

turns out the sickle cell gene gave those people resistance to malaria

the "bad" gene wasnt so bad after all

people with the gene had survival advantage

people without the gene were selected out (killed by malaria)

leaving people with the gene to pass on the gene

kaya naging dominant sa population nila

don't believe the story?

google it

[c_cube]

*ess

so paano yun mga namamatay palang sa sinapupunan ng ina yun sanggol?

walang plan si God sa kanila kaya binawian na agad ng buhay pero nasa heaven sila?

sabi ng mga kakilala kong protestant at sagradong katoliko, "i cannot question God", "i cannot lose my faith in Him because all problems and challenges in life is God's will" pero i don't buy it talaga, hindi ko makuha yun logic ng mga sinasabi nila

FYI Since elementary to HS i studied from a protestant school (Hope Christian) and DLSU when i was in college. so kahit papano may idea ako sa mga sinasabi nila. hindi lang siguro ako na convince na maniwala.

Talagang kanya kanyang opinion at paniniwala lang talaga tayo hehehe. Nanyari lang naMas marami lang akong tanong sa god o religion