| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"James" |
| Date: |
06 Jan 2008 01:12:08 PM |
| Object: |
Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
arah <arah1958@gmail.com>
Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION
Origin of man : Creation or Evolution
ISLAM EVOLUTION CREATION
The Christian Bible says that Adam & Eve were both created here on
Earth, less than 10,000 years ago. The Quran says that Adam & Eve were
created in Heaven, and NOT on Earth. When they disobeyed God, He
expelled them from Heaven, down to Earth. The Quran does not say when
this happened. Also the Quran does not say whether Adam & Eve were
physically transported from Heaven to Earth, or just their souls were
put into the already living homo sapiens.
Muslims believe that souls are assigned to humans 40 days after the
human inception. The Quran says that angels retrieve human souls on
two occasions. One occasion is when humans die. The other occasion is
every time humans fall asleep. When humans wakeup, the angels release
those souls back to them:
(Quran 39.42) It is Allah that takes the souls (of men) at death; and
those that did not die, during their sleep: those on whom He has
passed the decree of death, He keeps back, but the rest He sends (to
their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those
who reflect.
So, according to the Quran, humans can be alive, breathing, with fully
functional bodies (hence perfect DNA), but still without souls.
Homo sapiens had the same bodies and DNA as humans, but what about
their souls? Were the souls of the first humans (Adam & Eve) put into
those evolved homo sapiens? To answer this question, we need more
information about souls and spirits. But Allah clearly bans all
information about souls and spirits:
(Quran 17.85) And they ask you about the Spirit, say: "The Spirit
concerns only my Lord: The knowledge of which only a little is
communicated to you"
So all the information that will answer whether or not the souls of
the first humans were put into homo sapiens, is banned. Muslims don't
venture into this topic simply because God ordered them not to.
However, this is not the case concerning animals. The Quran agrees
with science that all life started in water, and not on dry land:
(Quran 24.45) And Allah has created every animal from water; of them
there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two
legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills: for
verily Allah has power over all things.
So the Quran agrees with science on the evolution of animals. But for
humans, the Quran stops short of answering whether it was
transportation from heaven or just homo sapiens with human souls.
DNA research point to the later scenario; but why couldn't God use for
Adam & Eve the same DNA as homo sapiens? Isn't this DNA of His own
creation in the first place? And how difficult is it to copy?
For more detail visit:
http://islamtomorrow.com/science/
Hello,
If what you say above is true, then Muslims believe in evolution,
along with many churches in Christendom. Now if evolution is ever
proved to be false, what does that say about the Muslim religion, as
well as those churches? It would thus make them false teachers,
wouldn't it.
The fossil record would be the greatest proof of evolution. Yet when
it is examined in detail, it supports the Bible's account of creation
much more than that theory of men; evolution. How so?
It is because since there are many thousands of different life forms,
from viruses to whales etc, the fossil record should show the many
thousands of transitional fossils as they kept evolving into new life
forms. But the fossil record shows life forms appearing suddenly and
complete, and staying around a long time. (there are some alleged
transitional fossils, but they are but a drop in the bucket for what
is needed to prove that evolutionary theory) Darwin himself considered
that to be one of his biggest objections to his pet theory. As he put
it:
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of
such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious
and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." (The
Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin)
So if evolution is clearly wrong (and the real scientific evidence
points to that conclusion), then the source material in the Quran
should be viewed with skepticism, even by its own believers. (and the
churches should be given a slap on the wrist for succumbing to the
theories of men, instead of putting their trust and faith in God's
written word, the Holy Bible.-- see 2 Ti 3:16)
Sincerely, James
**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads
***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
06 Jan 2008 08:00:14 PM |
|
|
<natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message.
Evidence and a better understanding of fossils and/or evolution:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Evolution is evolution.... simple and easily understandable... things
are evolving daily, minute by minute. It is quite apparent that the
Human species (as homo-sapien) did NOT originate on Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
13 Jan 2008 08:42:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:00:14 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
<natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message.
Evidence and a better understanding of fossils and/or evolution:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Evolution is evolution.... simple and easily understandable... things
are evolving daily, minute by minute. It is quite apparent that the
Human species (as homo-sapien) did NOT originate on Earth.
Not sure why I'm not seeing the articles you're responding to.
But one animal 'evolving' into eventually a completely different
animal is quite contrary to an animal evolving into a slightly
different version of the exact same animal. It's why, for
example, dogs always give birth to dogs, and cats always to cats,
and so on (after their kind) and cats never giving birth to
things that over many generations would become a dog.
We have evidence of animals evolving into the same animals with
minor differences. We see it all around us, and the fossil record
says the same thing. We have no evidence of animals evolving into
a completely different animal that bears no similarity to its
predecessor. We have never witnessed it, and even the fossil
record is void of such evidence: it has none of these undeniable
intermediate forms, when there should be many millions of them.
You're right about one thing in a manner of speaking: human
species did not originate on Earth - they originated from God,
after His image.
Genesis 1:26-27 KJVR
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
14 Jan 2008 04:02:59 PM |
|
|
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kilo3lsdpbh57lg8nqh02qj4kgjt6rdq4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:00:14 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
<natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message.
Evidence and a better understanding of fossils and/or evolution:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Evolution is evolution.... simple and easily understandable... things
are evolving daily, minute by minute. It is quite apparent that the
Human species (as homo-sapien) did NOT originate on Earth.
Not sure why I'm not seeing the articles you're responding to.
But one animal 'evolving' into eventually a completely different
animal is quite contrary to an animal evolving into a slightly
different version of the exact same animal.
No; contrary is a wrong, and misleading, word.
It's why, for
example, dogs always give birth to dogs, and cats always to cats,
and so on (after their kind) and cats never giving birth to
things that over many generations would become a dog.
Possibly true - but a PREDICESSOR of both dogs and cats DID, eventually,
evlolve into dogs or cats.
We have evidence of animals evolving into the same animals with
minor differences. We see it all around us, and the fossil record
says the same thing.
and the fossil record, and even current situations, shows animals
eventually evolving into different species.
We have no evidence of animals evolving into
a completely different animal that bears no similarity to its
predecessor.
Bull *****.
Again, you are fraudulently using a misleading phrase ... "no similarity".
Insects, for example, can be quite alike in MANY way - but still be a
diffeerent species.
Assholes like you would insanely think that a "cat" (domestic feline) is
exactly the same as a Hymalayian snow leopard.
We have never witnessed it, and even the fossil
record is void of such evidence: it has none of these undeniable
intermediate forms, when there should be many millions of them.
Ignorant creationist bull ***** and lies!
We HAVE seen them, and they ARE in the fossil record.
Your ignorance and denial of reality does not change the facts!
The epitome of ignorance is the "we've never seen it" - as though ONLY
visual evidence counts as a confirmation of an event or fact.
You're right about one thing in a manner of speaking: human
species did not originate on Earth - they originated from God,
after His image.
????????????
You have visual evidence of god?
You have ANY valid evidence of god?
You have valid evidence of ANYTHING you bellow?
Genesis 1:26-27 KJVR
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
gabriel
Fables, fairy tales and fantasies are not valid evidence, moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
14 Jan 2008 04:20:26 PM |
|
|
"John Smith" <bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote...
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
But one animal 'evolving' into eventually a completely different
animal is quite contrary to an animal evolving into a slightly
different version of the exact same animal.
No; contrary is a wrong, and misleading, word.
Then kindly replace it with, "Does NOT equate...".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
16 Jan 2008 12:06:49 PM |
|
|
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
Darwin's theory explains that natural conditions tend to favor
certain variations over others, resulting in the divergence of
of animals into different species. This is called "Natural selection",
which is just a more extensive natural process but similar to
artificial selection by humans of e.g. different breeds of dogs.
With millions of years nature produced the canine species, In just'
a few thousand years humans produced e.g. Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraser" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
16 Jan 2008 08:34:18 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:478e3c14$0$26040$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
Darwin's theory explains that natural conditions tend to favor
certain variations over others, resulting in the divergence of
of animals into different species. This is called "Natural selection",
which is just a more extensive natural process but similar to
artificial selection by humans of e.g. different breeds of dogs.
With millions of years nature produced the canine species, In just'
a few thousand years humans produced e.g. Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Perhaps, but Evolution doesn't explain how an amoeba morphed into
something with feathers, or how grasses became trees.
Cheers,
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
01 Feb 2008 01:53:09 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
01 Feb 2008 07:27:00 PM |
|
|
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
===>So, what?
NOTHING originated on this planet.
Not even this planet originated on this planet. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "udarrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
02 Feb 2008 12:25:08 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
===>So, what?
NOTHING originated on this planet.
Not even this planet originated on this planet. -- L.
So, there was nothing, nothing existed nor was there time, etc.
So wise guys how does evolution explain the creation of all the galaxies
orbiting in perfect order.
Evolution, there was nothing to evolve from; tell me another story! The
answer is beyond our intellect!- udarrell
--
WISDOM PRINCIPLED EMPOWERMENT COMMUNICATIONS -
THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUES & WISDOM Principled PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT
http://www.udarrell.com/ (Updated)
"The Center for Public Integrity," 935 Documented False Statements in two years so Bush & company could invade Iraq."
http://www.udarrell.com/my_pages2.htm (A page full of links to my pages.)
"Reality Is Not An Easy Thing To Be Confronted With, or to ACCEPT." - Darrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
02 Feb 2008 01:36:49 PM |
|
|
udarrell wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
===>So, what?
NOTHING originated on this planet.
Not even this planet originated on this planet. -- L.
So, there was nothing, nothing existed nor was there time, etc.
===>That is nonsense.
The substance of the Cosmos has always existed and will always exist.
It is an eternal process of formation and transformation, that is how
stars, planets, galaxies, galactic clusters, galactic superclusters,
etc., come into and go out of existence.
So wise guys how does evolution explain the creation of all the galaxies
orbiting in perfect order.
===>That is such an inane argument!
If their orbit was not "perfect" it would not exist.
Evolution, there was nothing to evolve from; tell me another story! The
answer is beyond our intellect!- udarrell
===>There was never "nothing".
Perhaps with some effort you may be able to expand your intellect
to become capable of understanding the limitless infinity of the
eternal Cosmos. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "udarrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
02 Feb 2008 09:12:24 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
udarrell wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
===>So, what?
NOTHING originated on this planet.
Not even this planet originated on this planet. -- L.
So, there was nothing, nothing existed nor was there time, etc.
===>That is nonsense.
The substance of the Cosmos has always existed and will always exist.
It is an eternal process of formation and transformation, that is how
stars, planets, galaxies, galactic clusters, galactic superclusters,
etc., come into and go out of existence.
So wise guys how does evolution explain the creation of all the
galaxies orbiting in perfect order.
===>That is such an inane argument!
If their orbit was not "perfect" it would not exist.
Evolution, there was nothing to evolve from; tell me another story!
The answer is beyond our intellect!- udarrell
===>There was never "nothing".
Perhaps with some effort you may be able to expand your intellect
to become capable of understanding the limitless infinity of the
eternal Cosmos. -- L.
If there was no beginning, why are the planets aging, etc.
I am sure you can explain everything with hard evidence to back up your
claims.
Libertarius, I am open to your vast knowledge. Keep it as concise as
possible.
- udarrell
--
WISDOM PRINCIPLED EMPOWERMENT COMMUNICATIONS -
THE REAL POLITICAL ISSUES & WISDOM Principled PEOPLE EMPOWERMENT
http://www.udarrell.com/ (Updated)
"The Center for Public Integrity," 935 Documented False Statements in two years so Bush & company could invade Iraq."
http://www.udarrell.com/my_pages2.htm (A page full of links to my pages.)
"Reality Is Not An Easy Thing To Be Confronted With, or to ACCEPT." - Darrell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
05 Feb 2008 10:37:23 PM |
|
|
udarrell wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
udarrell wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote...
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
Mankind did not originate on this planet.... end of story.
===>So, what?
NOTHING originated on this planet.
Not even this planet originated on this planet. -- L.
So, there was nothing, nothing existed nor was there time, etc.
===>That is nonsense.
The substance of the Cosmos has always existed and will always exist.
It is an eternal process of formation and transformation, that is how
stars, planets, galaxies, galactic clusters, galactic superclusters,
etc., come into and go out of existence.
So wise guys how does evolution explain the creation of all the
galaxies orbiting in perfect order.
===>That is such an inane argument!
If their orbit was not "perfect" it would not exist.
Evolution, there was nothing to evolve from; tell me another story!
The answer is beyond our intellect!- udarrell
===>There was never "nothing".
Perhaps with some effort you may be able to expand your intellect
to become capable of understanding the limitless infinity of the
eternal Cosmos. -- L.
If there was no beginning, why are the planets aging, etc.
===>"PANTA RHEI" - Everything flows.
Things (planets, stars, humans, etc.) are processes.
Nothing persists, nothing abides. The Cosmos is not
a "thing" but an eternal process, with no beginning and no end.
What we observe, including ourselves,
are just momentary snapshots in the eternal flux.
Everything in the eternal Cosmos is recycled.
I am sure you can explain everything with hard evidence to back up your
claims.
Libertarius, I am open to your vast knowledge. Keep it as concise as
possible.
- udarrell
===>Thank you, but please don't overestimate what I say.
Follow yourself.
Don't believe anything. "Trust but verify".
(you might read Carl Sagan, Heraclitus, Epicurus, Lucretius' "On the
Nature of Things", Spinoza, Bertrand Russell, etc., etc.)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
16 Jan 2008 04:45:26 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution. Think. Most cars are
made from almost completely the same material at the chemical
level. Using your logic, a hypothetical person that knew not what
a car was, or anything like it, but who thought like you do,
would then conclude they evolved from each other for the same
reason. "After all," he'd proudly claim, "They are genetically
related! They are made of the same materials at the deepest
level! They just have minor variations in their chemical code.
This is called Evolution!!", and he'd be wrong. It's not proof of
evolution - it's merely what leads you to believe it -might- be
true.
Ironically this very same evidence ends up also being evidence of
what we know to be the truth: common design - a designer. (i.e.,
God - but science doesn't need to admit God to do their job their
supposed to do and be -objective- about what the evidence -most
accurately- points to). Hmm.. DNA similar too in some ways. So
that DNA evidence is as much evidence of a designer as it is of
macro evolution. The "argument from ignorance" (look that up if
you've not heard of it) that you want to reject creation by
design does not make it creation by macro evolution by default.
It's unfortunate science refuses to consider another option more
accurately pointed to by all the same evidence macro evolution
thinks is their evidence alone: creation by design. The fossil
record totally supports creation by design, and actually
contradicts macro evolution: not one valid intermediate form when
there should be many millions of them, yet every form is instead
shown to only ever recreate "after its kind"
" And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it
was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply
in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every
thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw
that it was good. "
Genesis 1:21-25 KJVR
Darwin's theory explains that natural conditions tend to favor
certain variations over others, resulting in the divergence of
of animals into different species. This is called "Natural selection",
And it's a reason -why- they think macro evolution occurred. It
says nothing about -how it's mechanically possible-. Using your
theory, animals that live in trees and died from falling would
start producing offspring many generations later that could fly
so they'd stop dying. And that's as much of a -why- you say they
grew wings, without having to say a thing about -how- these
"whys" makes an animal physically capable of producing offspring
that's becoming a brand new, very distinctly different animal
(over generations) that now has feathers and wings, when no
ancestor had either! Did fish develop gills "because" they
happened to end up in shallow water and were 'drowning' from a
lack of water? Do you believe this too? This is just a "why", not
a "how", but macro evolutionists keep clouding that critical
distinction.
which is just a more extensive natural process but similar to
artificial selection by humans of e.g. different breeds of dogs.
With millions of years nature produced the canine species, In just'
a few thousand years humans produced e.g. Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.
Yes, micro-evolution: dogs breeding dogs. Dogs giving offspring
to dogs, shown in the fossil record and observed today, does not
make macro evolution true by default (dogs or any land-walking,
non-feather, non-winged creature breeding creatures that fly, and
the millions of other morphings they'd have you believe), which
is not once observed, and completely void in the fossil record.
Critical difference again they want to gloss over.
You can either accept the ancient fable and be a Cretionist, or
learn the facts of Evolution. Take your pick. -- L.
That's just it - macro evolution is no fact. It's become
practically a religion where these beliefs are passed off as
facts, and others are attacked and brought under a smear campaign
in the hopes of discrediting the obviousness of how the evidence
does not support the claims they want to make.
Even if I did not believe in God, I would not be able to find the
magnitude of faith to believe this macro evolutionary tale that
the evidence barely hints at. From a scientific point of view,
the very same evidence (DNA, homology, fossil record) supports
creation by design many times more than macro evolution.
I am -nothing-. It's only by the grace of God I am able to know
the truth, and I praise God for His grace and mercy, and praise
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, for what He did for
us on the cross, saving us from the wrath to come from our
lifetime of sinning against God. One way or another we must all
pay for a lifetime of sinning against our Creator. Our lying,
stealing, adultery at heart, our blasphemy, and more (refer to
the 10 commandments). But those of us who repent and allow
Christ's amazing gift to apply to us as well will be saved from
the wrath for our sins, sins against our Creator we all are
guilty of, myself included!
Praise the Lord!
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
18 Jan 2008 10:07:22 AM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution.
===>False. It is NOT "believed to be" anything.
Beliefs are for believers. Science depends on evidence.
Evolution is an observed, documented natural process
that results, among other effects, in SPECIATION.
Of course, you believe in creation by extraterrestrials,
as described in the Bible. But it does not say where those
creator aliens came from, does it? -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Fraser" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
18 Jan 2008 12:21:32 PM |
|
|
Good afternoon Libertarius;
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:4790c318$0$26071$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Gabriel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution.
===>False. It is NOT "believed to be" anything.
Beliefs are for believers. Science depends on evidence.
Evolution is an observed, documented natural process
that results, among other effects, in SPECIATION.
Of course, you believe in creation by extraterrestrials,
as described in the Bible. But it does not say where those
creator aliens came from, does it? -- L.
Ah, but Science has never been able to explain what caused the
speciation: whale, ostrich, eagle, elephant, all came from single cell
amoebas. Equally intriguiging.
Cheers,
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
19 Jan 2008 10:07:52 PM |
|
|
John Fraser wrote:
Good afternoon Libertarius;
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote in message
news:4790c318$0$26071$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Gabriel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution.
===>False. It is NOT "believed to be" anything.
Beliefs are for believers. Science depends on evidence.
Evolution is an observed, documented natural process
that results, among other effects, in SPECIATION.
Of course, you believe in creation by extraterrestrials,
as described in the Bible. But it does not say where those
creator aliens came from, does it? -- L.
Ah, but Science has never been able to explain what caused the
speciation: whale, ostrich, eagle, elephant, all came from single cell
amoebas. Equally intriguiging.
===>No one says they came from "single cell amoebas".
Where do you get such ridiculous notions?
Is that why you believe the Genesis fairy tale about extraterrestrial
"creators"? -- L.
Cheers,
John
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
18 Jan 2008 12:28:35 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:07:22 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution.
===>False. It is NOT "believed to be" anything.
Not true. They look at evidence, and then create a belief on what
they believe that evidence is pointing to. This belief of what
the evidence might be pointing to is macro evolution. Not once
observed. Not once verified. Not testable. Another belief on what
the evidence might be pointing to is creation by design, using
the exact same evidence they believe points to macro evolution:
fossil record, homology, DNA similarity.
Beliefs are for believers. Science depends on evidence.
God doesn't depend on evidence, but there's evidence that also
seems to point to God, from a scientific point of view.
Nevertheless, macro evolution is something never once observed,
verified, or testable. By that reckoning, macro evolution is not
science, but a religious belief in the god of big bang. Who
created your god of big bang?
Evolution is an observed, documented natural process
Actually macro evolution has not once been observed. Not once
been documented. Is not a natural process. Dogs, or any other
walking, featherless, wingless animal giving offspring to things
that have feathers, wings and now can fly, which is just one of
the -type- of thing macro evolution expects us to believe, is far
from a natural process. Not once observed, not verifiable, not
testable.
that results, among other effects, in SPECIATION.
Speciation only says -why- they think these morphings, or macro
evolution took place. It says nothing about the -hows- or the
mechanism which makes this even remotely possible.
Of course, you believe in creation by extraterrestrials,
as described in the Bible.
If you believe it's extraterrestrials, you haven't read the
Bible. It's God.
But it does not say where those
creator aliens came from, does it? -- L.
Your religion of macro evolution doesn't say where the big bang
came from.
gabriel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
19 Jan 2008 10:34:39 PM |
|
|
Gabriel wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:07:22 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:06:49 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
EVOLUTION vs. CREATION
The ancient fairy tale of one representative of an alien species,
YHWH ELOHIM, having sculpted all animals separately out of mud,
making them alive by blowing air into their noses is called Creation,
known from an ancient Hebrew book called Genesis.
The fact is that all species are genetically related and their
anatomical forms are the result of minor variations in the their
genetic code. This is called Evolution. It is known from observation.
No, it's believed to be macro evolution.
===>False. It is NOT "believed to be" anything.
Not true. They look at evidence, and then create a belief on what
they believe that evidence is pointing to.
===>That is pure nonsense.
This belief of what
the evidence might be pointing to is macro evolution. Not once
observed. Not once verified. Not testable. Another belief on what
the evidence might be pointing to is creation by design, using
the exact same evidence they believe points to macro evolution:
fossil record, homology, DNA similarity.
===>More confused nonsense.
Beliefs are for believers. Science depends on evidence.
God doesn't depend on evidence,
===>No. "God" depends on creative, imaginative human minds.
but there's evidence that also
seems to point to God, from a scientific point of view.
===>More nonsense.
No such "evidence" exists.
Nevertheless, macro evolution is something never once observed,
verified, or testable. By that reckoning, macro evolution is not
science, but a religious belief in the god of big bang. Who
created your god of big bang?
Evolution is an observed, documented natural process
Actually macro evolution has not once been observed. Not once
been documented. Is not a natural process. Dogs, or any other
walking, featherless, wingless animal giving offspring to things
that have feathers, wings and now can fly, which is just one of
the -type- of thing macro evolution expects us to believe, is far
from a natural process. Not once observed, not verifiable, not
testable.
===>RIDICULOUS nonsense.
that results, among other effects, in SPECIATION.
Speciation only says -why- they think these morphings, or macro
evolution took place. It says nothing about the -hows- or the
mechanism which makes this even remotely possible.
===>You are unable to comprehend genetics.
Of course, you believe in creation by extraterrestrials,
as described in the Bible.
If you believe it's extraterrestrials, you haven't read the
Bible. It's God.
===>There is no "God" in the Bible.
It talks about ELOHIM!
Where did they come from?
This planet TERRA?
Of course not.
In fact the fables in the Bible describe them as
extraterrestrials who terraformed a formless, watery
ERETZ -- alternatively as one of them sculpting all
life forms and making them alive by blowing air
into their noses.
But it does not say where those
creator aliens came from, does it? -- L.
Your religion of macro evolution doesn't say where the big bang
came from.
===>There is no such religion.
And it has nothing to do with any "big bang". -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gabriel" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
15 Jan 2008 01:53:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:02:59 GMT, "John Smith"
<bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kilo3lsdpbh57lg8nqh02qj4kgjt6rdq4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:00:14 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
<findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
<natezenmaster@gmail.com> wrote in message.
Evidence and a better understanding of fossils and/or evolution:
http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
Evolution is evolution.... simple and easily understandable... things
are evolving daily, minute by minute. It is quite apparent that the
Human species (as homo-sapien) did NOT originate on Earth.
Not sure why I'm not seeing the articles you're responding to.
But one animal 'evolving' into eventually a completely different
animal is quite contrary to an animal evolving into a slightly
different version of the exact same animal.
No; contrary is a wrong, and misleading, word.
Then how about this, as the other poster said "One animal
'evolving' into a slightly different version of the same animal
type does not equate to an animal evolving into a completely
different animal type.
It's why, for
example, dogs always give birth to dogs, and cats always to cats,
and so on (after their kind) and cats never giving birth to
things that over many generations would become a dog.
Possibly true - but a PREDICESSOR of both dogs and cats DID, eventually,
evlolve into dogs or cats.
Notice the language used: you say "DID", passing it off as fact,
when it's merely a belief of what might or might not be true.
How do you know it -did-? Where's your proof? Where's your
-proof- of one animal morphing over generations into a completely
unrelated animal?
The fossil record is completely void of even one such
intermediate fossil (which this obvious lack supports the Bible
record of animals only reproducing after its kind), and there's
no observable case going on today of an animal evolving into an
animal no ancestor ever was. Yet you want to believe it's true
and pass off your belief as undeniable fact. That's not science -
that's a religious belief you have, just like Christians.
We have evidence of animals evolving into the same animals with
minor differences. We see it all around us, and the fossil record
says the same thing.
and the fossil record, and even current situations, shows animals
eventually evolving into different species.
Actually the fossil record doesn't. It's well known they have no
valid intermediate forms.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_debatehighlights/
"This sort of dramatic global scale catastrophism documented in
the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and much of the Cenozoic sediments
implies a distinctively different interpretation of the
associated fossil record. Instead of representing an evolutionary
sequence, the record reveals a successive destruction of
ecological habitat in a global tectonic and hydrologic
catastrophe. This understanding readily explains why Darwinian
intermediate types are systematically absent from the geological
record -- the fossil record documents a brief and intense global
destruction of life and not a long evolutionary history! The
types of plants and animals preserved as fossils were the forms
of life that existed on the earth prior to the catastrophe. The
long span of time and the intermediate forms of life that the
evolutionist imagines in his mind are simply illusions. And the
strong observational evidence for this catastrophe absolutely
demands a radically revised time scale relative to that assumed
by evolutionists."
http://www.icr.org/article/832/
"As a matter of fact, in all human history, no one has ever seen
any real evolution take place (horizontal variation within kinds
is not macro-evolution), although thousands of species have
become extinct during human history. Furthermore, out of the
billions of known fossils in the earth's rock record of the past,
no true intermediate evolutionary transitional form between kinds
has ever been discovered, whereas there ought to be large numbers
of such intermediate forms if evolution had really happened.
No wonder evolutionists become paranoid when asked to allow both
sides of the creation-evolution issue to be heard. They cannot
respond with real scientific evidence, because there is none—no
evolution in the present, none in the past. This has become
painfully obvious in the hundreds of scientific debates between
evolutionists and creationists during the past 25 years. "
Any one they've tried to claim was such a form was always
refuted (some were even faked, not surprisingly, before being
exposed). So, where's your evidence of animal fossils being
evidence of an intermediate form between something that lived and
something now alive (or extinct)? There should be many millions
of such examples.
And I almost missed it: you said "and even current situations"?!!
Where's your evidence that we can see where an animal alive today
is in the middle of evolving into a completely different animal
from a completely different animal type?
We have no evidence of animals evolving into
a completely different animal that bears no similarity to its
predecessor.
Bull *****.
Is this your evidence?
Again, you are fraudulently using a misleading phrase ... "no similarity".
back up a few words and notice I said "completely different".
Cars are similar to each other. Is that evidence they evolved?
No, you need more: a mechanism, not just "they look alike". We
know the mechanism of cars: they were designed and built. That's
why they look alike. And that's why homology is actually evidence
that points more accurate to creation by design than macro
evolution.
Insects, for example, can be quite alike in MANY way - but still be a
diffeerent species.
Assholes like you
Personal attacks like this only serve to show you know macro
evolution is false, as you resort to such suppression and smear
techniques as your method of debating.
would insanely think that a "cat" (domestic feline) is
exactly the same as a Hymalayian snow leopard.
No, but they are both of the same species, a Cat. Where's your
evidence that your "cat" species evolved from something that was
never a cat? Where's your evidence that man evolved from an ape?
Where are those thousands of ape/man intermediate fossils? Where
are those millions of one animal to a completely different animal
fossils?
We have never witnessed it, and even the fossil
record is void of such evidence: it has none of these undeniable
intermediate forms, when there should be many millions of them.
Ignorant creationist bull ***** and lies!
Why do you say such things rather than actually showing evidence?
Sorry but you've only provided two things:
[1] your opinions
[2] insults to 'back it up"
And this is typically all macro evolutionists bring to the table
when anyone dares to point out how evidence (or lack thereof)
actually contradicts their beliefs in a major way.
We HAVE seen them, and they ARE in the fossil record.
Your ignorance and denial of reality does not change the facts!
The epitome of ignorance is the "we've never seen it" - as though ONLY
visual evidence counts as a confirmation of an event or fact.
Earlier you claimed ".. current situations, shows animals
eventually evolving into different species." Are you changing
your mind now?
Without confirmation of a belief, it remains a belief. Your
attack on God verifies you follow this rule. Why do you no longer
follow this rule when following your beliefs in macro evolution?
It might be true, it might not, but it's a belief and yet you
claim belief is good enough: it's a fact.
And I'm talking about no evidence around us and in the fossil
record. We've witnessed micro-evolution (dogs creating different
looking animals that are still dogs, for example) both in the
fossil record and around us. Contrast that to not once having
evidence of macro evolution, either around us, or in the fossil
record.
Notice again you claim the evidence is all there, and not -once-
provide it, but instead give more insults.
You're right about one thing in a manner of speaking: human
species did not originate on Earth - they originated from God,
after His image.
????????????
You have visual evidence of god?
You have ANY valid evidence of god?
Interesting you claim to need that which you do not have
concerning macro evolution. No visual evidence of macro
evolution. No valid evidence of macro evolution.
"Evidence" of God? Creation all around you. That is evidence that
we believe points to God. That -same evidence- is what you
believe indicates macro evolution. We're almost in the same boat:
we both use the -same evidence- to indicate what we believe it
points to. But there's a critical difference: the fossil record,
while completely contradicting your claims, since there are no
transitional forms when there should be millions, supports
creation by God, as we only see the animals in their distinct
forms, as they were created separately by God.
So in all honesty, the very same evidence you claim points to
your beliefs in macro evolution more solidly point to creation by
design.
But you give the impression you're not interested in the actual
truth, as all you've offered is your opinion and insults. It's
clear this topic is very upsetting to you, and I have a theory
for you (although it's not a scientific theory).
Perhaps in your heart you realize your state before God, having
broken His Law (as have we all). But if you think you're going to
be able to stand before Christ on your day of judgment, still
guilty of breaking His Law, and claim anything about how science
deceived you, and how it's not your fault, you will be in for a
tragic surprise.
God has made readily available all the evidence anyone needs to
see the truth.
" .. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the
invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and
to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. .. "
Romans 1:18-23 KJVR
But macro evolutionists use this same evidence to claim it
supports their beliefs instead, and to deceive others that
organization does by passing it off as science and as fact, when
it's neither.
Look more closely, and take off your presuppositions that macro
evolution is true.
gabriel
You have valid evidence of ANYTHING you bellow?
Genesis 1:26-27 KJVR
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
gabriel
Fables, fairy tales and fantasies are not valid evidence, moron!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
06 Jan 2008 07:58:05 PM |
|
|
"James" <bireda@peoplepc.com> wrote in message...
But the fossil record shows life forms appearing suddenly and
complete, and staying around a long time. (there are some alleged
transitional fossils, but they are but a drop in the bucket for what
is needed to prove that evolutionary theory)
So if evolution is clearly wrong (and the real scientific evidence
points to that conclusion)
It stands to reason that humans (in the form of homo-sapien) as a
species, did NOT originate on this planet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Morgan \MAMS" |
|
| Title: Re: ORIGIN OF MAN: CREATION OR EVOLUTION |
15 Jan 2008 12:03:05 PM |
|
|
"Jayne Cobb" <hsototr@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0d3ecb06-65d6-46d6-b375-fb0807f9ae8a@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 8:26 pm, Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
It stands to reason that humans (in the form of homo-sapien) as a
species, did NOT originate on this planet.
Yeah the came by space ships and beamed down to earth
No they were placed here by mice looking for the ultimate question.
You are both far more correct than you probably care to believe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
