Aaron

Yay. Finally scientific proof is coming our way. I'm dying to see how you can use science to support your christian beliefs.

Pardon the sarcasm, but if you want to have faith in god and science the first thing you need to do is discard dogma. Declairing yourself christian shows a bias right off the bat (no, I don't have any problem with your beliefs).

Has it ever occured to you that evilution is part of gods plan? I am open minded in the majority of my beliefs. Evilution is not one of those. To argue against evilution is closed minded and absurd. There is nothing outside of the bible and religious dogma that would argue evilution.

That being said, I am open to your input. If you can make a well founded, logical and scientific statement to disprove my beliefs I will be the first to acknowledge.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

Romulus

__________________
_________________
(\__/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
(='.'=) Bunny into
(")_(") your signature to help him gain world domination.
___________________
Joshua 24:15
As for me and my house we will serve the lord.

Evi|ution

I am where you are Rom, and I'm not against you. I was just saying I understand Og's request for proof/evidence and I hope at least in the smallest way I can provide it.

First though, what we have to understand about the spirit is that it is not physical, and therefore can not be tested as such, by physical, man-made tools. What is not always seen by the human eye, or felt with the human hand, is not necessarily a non-existent thing. The universe may be endless, and it may be finite, but the acceptance of any of these is based on faith. As far as we may have seen with our eyes of this galaxy, we do not yet know if there is anything beyond it. We can say, with reason, that there is more to the universe than we have seen, but it must still be accepted by faith because we do not truely know if we have seen its end or not. As I said, by reason any man can say the universe has not been fully discovered as of yet, but he can not say by sure, except by faith, that it is endless because he never traveled far enough to know. In fact, he never could because if it was endless, just pretend it was for a second, he would never receive proof because no matter how far he traveled, it would just appear that it was endless but he never knows if he travels a little bit further he will reach an end point.

This is not the best example, nor is it proof of the existence of the spirit. But no matter how emperical or convincing the evidence, anything accepted, however small a subject it may be, beyond what we have not ourselves seen and experienced, is a faith. The belief in creation is a faith, the belief in evolution is a faith. Both do have foundations of proof to enforce in some way that they are truths, but both must be accepted by faith because neither has actually been observed by either of us. No one has observed one life-from changing into another, just as no one has observed the creation of the universe.

There is a difference between faith and fact, but sometimes what we have faith in, is in fact, a fact.

Gravity is not a faith because every single time I pick up a ball and drop it, I observe and experience the effect of gravity upon it, and this is repeatable. The coelacanth, once though to be the ancestor of all amphibians, which according to evolution should have become extinct 60 million years ago, was discovered to still be alive today and match the the fossil version in every detail. This was once too considered a "scientific fact" and had all confidence of evolutionists in the validity of it. It was proven wrong and discarded and then had to be replaced by something else, and the theory changed to that the coelacanth instead stopped evolving because it didn't need to anymore. This proves that the coelecanth which evolutionists placed their full confidence in as the ancestor of the first amphibians, was in fact faith based and not truely a fact as it was labeled.

Does this mean that evolution is therefore wrong? No it does not. What it means is that there was a mistake in the theory which needed to be discarded. Evolution is a belief accepted by faith otherwise it wouldn't be an ever-changing theory, because facts don't need to be changed again and again to something different. But once again, I do not claim it to be therefore auto-matically false.

There wasn't really any science at all involved in this post but I will get to that, I am just trying to establish simply, that faith is not always unreasonable, nor wrongly attributed.

Because God is not physical, we can not come to know God by physical means. God is spirit and therefore we must worship Him in spirit and in truth, as the Bible says. We can see the intelligence of the Creator behind the marvelous complexity of the universe, and we can come to apreciate the work of His hands, but we can not come to know Him personally by "worshiping the creation more than the Creator."

I plan on discussing some creation science with you guys so don't assume that I am not.

__________________
1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Prove all things. Hold on to the good."

milligal

I think you have missed the mark as far as providing evidence. This web link would be an example of evidence:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...es_l1/age.html

There is a scientific method held against provable criteria to identify the size and age of the universe, there is no such thing to measure god's spirit. Therefore that comparison is inaccurate.

Your hypothesis that all ideas require faith is also untrue since there is solid evidence of many scientific beliefs, you drop a ball from your hand, it falls to the earth, there is a name for the force responsible for that action. No action of 'god's' can be proven to belong to him or his spirit. There is no singular action to identify god or his spirit. There are many other explanations for the forces that are attributed to him.

If you want to compare apples to apples let's talk about your colecanth (which does need some supportive data to back up your accusation that scientists accepted it and now believe it to be false) let's say for the sake of argument you are correct in stating this. What about the many beliefs that christianity used to hold but no longer does-like witchcraft being a sign of the devils presence and burning people at the stake for it? According to your example if you take one instance of a group of people being wrong that casts doubt on the other beliefs that belong to them-so does this changed belief of christianity prove that all christians are wrong and cannot be accurate on any topic?

mary

hiya This is quite interesting to read, but it might strain your eyes since you might have to read from the monitor for about 5 mins.
(mary's quick summary(!) : man has always been a distinct species, and even though at times humans might have physically looked like other primates, we have always been humans). It has been taken from writings of the bahai faith. reference: http://bahai-library.com/index.php5?...estions. html
--------
49. THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN RACE

Question.--What do you say with regard to the theories held by some European philosophers on the growth and development of beings?

Answer.--This subject was spoken of the other day, but we will speak of it again. Briefly, this question will be decided by determining whether species are original or not--that is to say, has the species of man been established from its origin, or was it afterward derived from the animals?

Certain European philosophers agree that the species grows and develops, and that even change and alteration are also possible. One of the proofs that they give for this theory is that through the attentive study and verification of the science of geology it has become clear that the existence of the vegetable preceded that of the animal, and that of the animal preceded that of man. They admit that both the vegetable and the animal species have changed, for in some of the strata of the earth they have discovered plants which existed in the past and are now extinct; they have progressed, grown in strength, their form and appearance have changed, and so the species have altered. In the same way, in the strata of the earth there are some species of animals which have changed and are transformed. One of these animals is the serpent. There are indications that the serpent once had feet, but through the lapse of time those members have disappeared. In the same way, in the vertebral column of man there is an indication which amounts to a proof that, like other animals, he once had a tail. At one time that member was useful, but when man developed, it was no longer of use; and, therefore, it gradually disappeared. As the serpent took refuge under the ground and became a creeping animal, it was no longer in need of feet, so they disappeared; but their traces survive. The principal argument is this: that the existence of traces of members proves that they once existed, and as now they are no longer of service, they have gradually disappeared. Therefore, while the perfect and necessary members have remained, those which are unnecessary have gradually disappeared by the modification of the species, but the traces of them continue.

The first answer to this argument is the fact that the animal having preceded man is not a proof of the evolution, change and alteration of the species, nor that man was raised from the animal world to the human world. For while the individual appearance of these different beings is certain, it is possible that man came into existence after the animal. So when we examine the vegetable kingdom, we see that the fruits of the different trees do not arrive at maturity at one time; on the contrary, some come first and others afterward. This priority does not prove that the later fruit of one tree was produced from the earlier fruit of another tree.

Second, these slight signs and traces of members have perhaps a great reason of which the mind is not yet cognizant. How many things exist of which we do not yet know the reason! So the science of physiology--that is to say, the knowledge of the composition of the members-- records that the reason and cause of the difference in the colors of animals, and of the hair of men, of the redness of the lips, and of the variety of the colors of birds, is still unknown; it is secret and hidden. But it is known that the pupil of the eye is black so as to attract the rays of the sun, for if it were another color--that is, uniformly white--it would not attract the rays of the sun. Therefore, as the reason of the things we have mentioned is unknown, it is possible that the reason and the wisdom of these traces of members, whether they be in the animal or man, are equally unknown. Certainly there is a reason, even though it is not known.

Third, let us suppose that there was a time when some animals, or even man, possessed some members which have now disappeared; this is not a sufficient proof of the change and evolution of the species. For man, from the beginning of the embryonic period till he reaches the degree of maturity, goes through different forms and appearances. His aspect, his form, his appearance and color change; he passes from one form to another, and from one appearance to another. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the embryonic period he is of the species of man--that is to say, an embryo of a man and not of an animal; but this is not at first apparent, but later it becomes visible and evident. For example, let us suppose that man once resembled the animal, and that now he has progressed and changed. Supposing this to be true, it is still not a proof of the change of species. No, as before mentioned, it is merely like the change and alteration of the embryo of man until it reaches the degree of reason and perfection. We will state it more clearly. Let us suppose that there was a time when man walked on his hands and feet, or had a tail; this change and alteration is like that of the fetus in the womb of the mother. Although it changes in all ways, and grows and develops until it reaches the perfect form, from the beginning it is a special species. We also see in the vegetable kingdom that the original species of the genus do not change and alter, but the form, color and bulk will change and alter, or even progress.

To recapitulate: as man in the womb of the mother passes from form to form, from shape to shape, changes and develops, and is still the human species from the beginning of the embryonic period--in the same way man, from the beginning of his existence in the matrix of the world, is also a distinct species--that is, man--and has gradually evolved from one form to another. Therefore, this change of appearance, this evolution of members, this development and growth, even though we admit the reality of growth and progress, [i.e., if we admit, for example, that man had formerly been a quadruped, or had had a tail.] does not prevent the species from being original. Man from the beginning was in this perfect form and composition, and possessed capacity and aptitude for acquiring material and spiritual perfections, and was the manifestation of these words, "We will make man in Our image and likeness." [Cf. Gen. 1:26.] He has only become more pleasing, more beautiful and more graceful. Civilization has brought him out of his wild state, just as the wild fruits which are cultivated by a gardener become finer, sweeter and acquire more freshness and delicacy.

The gardeners of the world of humanity are the Prophets of God.

Aaron

Mary, respectfully, isn't this manipulating evidence of evilution into an argument against evilution?

These are all good posts. They demonstrate the ability to have faith and maintain a free mind. I don't agree with a lot of them, but I would'nt dismiss them as being less valid than anything I believe.

__________________
"The pump don't work cause' the vandals took the handle" - Bob Dylan

milligal

In the last couple pages, I have responded to several christian posts with valid arguments against their reasoning. As usual, there is no counter argument. Although I disagree with Mary's post and find logical reasons to diasagree, I am not going to bother responding since most christians simply ignore any counter evidence anyway.

omnius1

Jesse

Using the same line of reasoning presented in Mary's post one could argue that life began as one species and there is still only one species remaining, they just changed a lot.