wat do u think about evolvin from apes... the big bang theory? the butterfly effect... how about any other ideas about how life came? What extent do u believe in evolution... i think that animals and humans adapt to environment thus evolving but they dont turn into completly new animals (monky > human) wat is every1s thots???? this topic promises to be interestin.......
Comments
Darwins disscusion of evolution revolved around habitation not organism diversity and what not. so fantical darwinists have the wrong idea. as such i belive in evolution after creation.
http://www.coptichymns.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sermons&file=index&q=f&f=/English/_Fr_Athanasius_Iskander
Science Creation Bangs and Booms.
It was a bible study Abouna Athanasius Iskander did...it's really good!
an al i wana say is that its just a theory- it hasnt bin provin so scientists should stop makin themselves sound smart lol- they cant prove it- so jus let em give up ;)
The queston went, "what does your Holiness thing about the evolution theory? and how do we answer people about it?" He goes:
1) ITs a THEORY not a FACT so no proof
2) Its funny how scintiest would rather be evolving from animals than the creation of God
3) In science, if something is true, then it can be duplicated under certain conditions. So, If it happend before, we can duplicate the conditions in a lab and it should happen again, but that never occured. (like get an ape and see if after so many years he/she starts showing signs of evolution in a controled environment)
4) We can hold things with our hands due to the fact that we have an opposable thumb. We can't do the same with our feet because we have five toes on the same axis. Apes on the other hand can use either hands or feet to grab on things. If you ask me, I think that it should be the other way around that humans should evolve into apes and have these kinds of features.
5) If after all that they are not convienced, then fine, lets say for argument's sake that we did evolve from apes (which didn't happen) who created the apes? so we are still a creation of God.
i kinda liked his response. Thought I would share
Thats exactly right! Yet modern scientists and many teachers act as if Evolution is an irrefutable fact...this is not so.
The main reason they dont want to be a creation of God is that they want to live an immoral life free from the restraints a Holy,Omnipotent God may impose on their lifestyle...lol...They want to be free but in reality they are slaves....to SIN.Only in our God Christ Jesus do we find true freedom and fullfillment.Amen!
so many scientists say that evolution is the "inreffutable creation of humans"...they also say the same about the big bang theory.
As someone mentioned in this thread (i'm sorry, i can't remember ur name), there IS embryonic evidence that humans are similar to apes, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Did u noe that a chicken embryo and a human embryo look exactly identical at one point in the embryo's existence? So if scientists act on that, they're gonna suggest that humans come from chickens???
and btw, can some one explain to me the general idea of what the butterfly effect is? i've heard of it so many times, yet i haven't understood it for quite a while.
Thanx...
Sinful Servant
I found this website one day. its basics is christian, but watch out for some of its arguements. it gives some answers from the bible and at the same time from the science prespective.
http://answersingenesis.org/
ok, cause of industry, white trees become black from the smoke. So the white butterfly's who could hide well at first in the white trees, now arent camouflaged all of a sudden. Meaning that white butterfly's have a smaller change of surviving. The exact opposite happens to the black butterfly's.
Conclusion; survival of the fittest. (best one adopted to environment etc)
ok...thanx...
Sinful Servant
Rabena Ma3ak ya Hos Erof...
Sinful Servant
Basically every particle in the universe is both a wave and a particle. When you measure it's momentum (velocity times mass), it's by definition a wave. When you measure it's position in space, it suddenly becomes a particle....all rather strange stuff.
But the weird thing is (I won't go into HOW...it gets a little bit too technical and academic) that it never really HAS a position in space until it is measured by a scientist in a laboratory. According to what is called the "Copenhagen Interpretation", all particles exist in a "probability wave" which theoretically extends over the whole space/time continuum. And, according to this interpretation, nothing really exists AT ALL, until it is measured by a scientist in a laboratory.....in other words, they only exist in the mind.
Now many New-Age tinged scientists like Niels Bohr and David Bohm, have been a little far-fetched in applying this (as yet-unproven interpretation) to ALL OF EXISTENCE. In fact, many sociologists and historians have failed to take into account how the Quantum Revolution has helped to formulate the Post-modernist/pluralist/relativist Revolution of today....it's had a BIG role. Basically, their conclusion is that quantum physics proves that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
BUT THEY ARE FORGETTING THAT THE FACT THAT QUANTUM PHYSICS EVEN WORKS THIS WAY IS ITSELF ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
I really don't think the Big Bang Theory contradicts creationism. The Church has never taught that the Genesis account must be taken literally. In fact, even Blessed Augustine didn't take it literally (although he argued in the opposite direction: that God really created everything in one day). Actually, the first proponents of the Big Bang theory were theists (i.e. they believed in God). In fact, the people who first took offence at the Big Bang Theory were atheists!
I also don't see any contradiction between evolution and creationism (which is why I hate the Darwin fish that morons put on the back of their cars). The problem with Darwinian Evolution is purely scientific: they still have not properly accounted for the problems of "irreducible complexity" that Michael Behe has put forth.
by the way,....as a side note, Michael Behe does NOT hold to theism or creationism, as many of his attackers have assumed.
actually the order of genesis is the same as in evolution if i'm not mistaking: first in the sea, then walking creatures, then birds, then man (primates). The only scientific problem would be "man"
Keep:Dling
like the bones of the the australio pikathus, homo habilies, neandrathals. that were found
but the fact that we evolved from them is false, theyre just diff species that got extinct. Like a gorilla and a human, theyre two diff species.
But i think the church does agree with evolution b/c if u notice something in Genesis in the very first chapter, it says firstthe water creatures were made, then he made the normal animals. Thats exactly like what evolution states. The first organisms were from the water then they evolved into flying creatures, then finally evolved into land animals.
There's always benn this "war" between Religion and Science, but most of their arguments are linked together.
Also most of the greatest scientists (Isaac Newton, Eienstine) stated somewhere in their book something related to that a God exists in their books.
John Dalton himself wrote in the last page of his book on evolution "that all this would have never existed if there were no greater Being" aka GOD (this is not word by word what he said but it's something to that affect).
Heres a qoute i heard from a Servent who works for NASA/JPL :
"Scientists are always climbing the mountain of knowlege, figuring out more and more truth; but when they finally reach the top of the mountain they will find a group of theologians waiting for them."
Peace
Nader
The Coptic Orthodox church believes that sciences and religion can co-operate together, HOWEVER sciences is always a smaller factor than faith. No matter what the scientific proof contradicts in faith, faith is always a more important factor due to the fact that religious views have existed and have irrefutable evidence that they exist already...
Hope that made sense...
Sinful Servant