Big Bang/Evolution

2

Comments

  • I do see and confess that science came along long way and it is improved alot, I mean they are doing cloning now actualy it is illegal but they know how to do it.
    Science doesn't have all of the answers to why something occurs and why does it happen this way.

    If science came up with the idea of evolution that covers the story of creation, then there is no possible way for science to explain how a dead man came back to life, or how a blind man can see by just mud, or how a paralized man can walk with just words came out of god's mouth, and etc............

    Scientists forgot one major thing, that god is the one who gave them brains to think and accomplish what they had accomplished. Starting from the Eureka guy to newton and down the line........>!!!

    Mashey let me put it this way, You think that there is nothing to proof the story of creation ( eventhough there is THE BIBLE, bas I am gonna go along with you!) I will tell you "Ok, there is nothing to proff the story of evolution", you might tell me "well..... scientists proved it", I will tell you why would you believe the words of a monkey? if that is what they proved that they are monkies!

    Also if you put this way........
    ( in science world)
    A blind guy + mud = what a heck..........!!

    ( in God's world)
    A blind guy + Mud = He can see...!!!

    Sceince doesn't have the answer to everything, and they do mistakes, they do it all the time! Ya davidschanter god does things in his way that it is hard to observe with just a human mind, you need a heart to believe!

    If you are having a hard time just understanding the story of creation, then you are going to have a graet hard time understaning the rest of the bible!

    May god guide you and lead you to his path, not the science lab path!

    bentBABAyasoaa`
  • You got me wrong. Lol i am not for evolution i dont know what that means to you. I can see the creation happenning instantaneously as God said in Genesis. But the problem is the Bible does not say if it was or not (instantaneous).
    We notice that the first coupld days were without the sun. Did God take the whole time of these "days" without the sun to make whatever he was making in those days, or did he say "this shall happen" and it happened in an instant?
    I am not against any way. It really doesn't matter to me. What matters is that a person who thinks it happened over a long period of time could be just as correct as a person who thinks it happened in an instant. When i talk to an evolutionist i want to explain God in his language.
    I still do not see anything in the Bible against this method of creation.

    Yes. I know God has the power to make it all in an instant. But what if he didn't? (you tell me)
    Why did he tell the blind man to pick up the mud and go to the river and wash his eyes, when he could have said "and the blind man can see" and it just happened in an instant?
  • [quote author=bentBABAyasooa` link=board=1;threadid=4862;start=30#msg66172 date=1168879094]

    If you are having a hard time just understanding the story of creation, then you are going to have a graet hard time understaning the rest of the bible!


    bentBABAyasoaa`


    Lol forgive me
  • Why did he tell the blind man to pick up the mud and go to the river and wash his eyes, when he could have said "and the blind man can see" and it just happened in an instant?

    It was important for Christ to ask the man to do this so that there would be no questioning who performed the miracle. If he had given him sight instantly, the man could have potentially considered this coincidence or just mere prophecy.

    Also, when Christ performs miracles, he likes to involve people, so that we feel that we are contributing something towards our wellbeing, (a modern-day anology is prayer before receiving a request from god)

    Let's be honest - it's clear that you are unwilling for some reason to concede the fallacy of this evolution theory, despite the fact that you continually affirm that you are not for or against evolution

    The reasons and proofs against evolution have been mentioned already from the perspectives of faith, the holy bible, church doctrinal theology, and importantly, LOGIC



  • ok thanks for your help
  • It just soooooooo annoying people think they are monkies!
    P.S.
    I have nothing against monkies! :-*
  • davidschanter is only trying to show that it is plausible for evolution to exist and that is isn't contradictory to what the Bible says. I get the vibe that most people are throwing away this idea because of the fact that we came from apes (Oh no!!). Personally I'm not persuaded by evolution, but I do not throw the idea out. What if God chose to do it that way, whats wrong with that? But to throw a plausible idea away and say its ABSOLUTELY wrong is telling God that he couldn't do it this way, which is absurd.
  • I will admit that i do not know much about evolution. I have only been studying it in my APBIO class so im still at a basic level. My teacher believes in God, but he also thinks evolution is valid. I thought to myself thatit isn't possible to have both, and i thought my teacher was confused.
    What is more important the body we are in or the breath of life which God put in us?
    Bentbaba don't u think we would be equal to monkies without the breath of life which God said he breathed into our nostrils?
    Or are we superior without the breath of God?
  • But to throw a plausible idea away and say its ABSOLUTELY wrong is telling God that he couldn't do it this way, which is absurd.

    ...and what about questioning the fact that God created man from nothing and instead created him in stages...is that not also undermining the power of God???

    What if

    This is pretty much the only argument that has been given for evolution, and is one which can open the path for any bizarre "theory" ---

    "what if" we actually originated as alien life forms from another planet light years away...?

    People, we are not here to speculate and question, and if that were the case....why stop at genesis?? Why not continue to speculate on every verse of the bible and in so doing, come up with more crazy ideas??

    don't u think we would be equal to monkies without the breath of life which God said he breathed into our nostrils?

    Turn to Genesis 1:26:

    "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over ALL THE EARTH, AND OVER EVERY CREEPING THING THAT CREEPS UPON THE EARTH"

    After reading this verse, is the first thing that comes into our mind -- Yep, we must have been monkies then!
    Where is the logic in that???Come on!!

    ok thanks for your help

    No problem davidschanter, ultimately, i'm just trying to help
  • [quote author=Cherry88 link=board=1;threadid=4862;start=30#msg66324 date=1169093027]


    ...and what about questioning the fact that God created man from nothing and instead created him in stages...is that not also undermining the power of God???


    [

    Interesting I didn't make this thread to have an argument, but you seem to want to. No where did I go against the idea of God creating instantaneously. Read this thread over if you really are getting that thought. I don't know how many times I said that.

    I'm sorry but i don't think you understand what the image of God means. God doesn't have a human face. Oopnevma Pe Ifnootee. God is Spirit. No one has seen God. Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh to save us from our iniquities.
    To make in the "image of His own Likeness" is to possess the Breath of God.
  • The conflict arises, David, when one comes to carefully review the evidence that supposedly undergirds the theory of evolutionary progression. Now keep in mind that the threads of this discussion have already disqualified any notion of Darwinian evolution. At most, one may only presume the existence of a divine, personal Agent utilizing the theory of Theistic Evolution. To recapitulate my previous post in a more succinct manner I present you with this illustration:

    Suppose that a cohort of yours from the academic field instigated that within the confines of his backyard a ship as large as the Titanic was hauled above the air by a massive jet and was accidentally dropped next to his house. So as to give your friend the benefit of the doubt, your presume the theory is at least somewhat possible. You then begin to drill your friend with a series of questions. For instance you may ask, "From where did a ship as large as the Titanic arrive from?"; "Are you certain that any aircraft can really carry such a large ship"; "Did you take any pictures of the ship?", "Your house didn't receive any damage from the initial impact?", "Did the firetrucks and police rush to your house afterward?", and most significantly "Is the ship still there?".

    Now suppose your friend retorted with the following responses:

    "The ship was spontaneously emanated and immediately the government had revealed a massive secret aircraft they had been developing for years specifically designed to carry such a large ship.....but don't attempt to search for records or evidence, it's been erased",

    "No I didn't have time to take pictures of the ship in my backyard",

    "No, my house is in tip top shape since immediately prior to the accident we enlarged my backyard to be 100 times larger than before.",


    "Unfortunately as soon as the police arrived the ship vanished, except I believe I may have a few screws that belonged to the ship in my garage. That should be sufficient evidence for you".

    Now suppose that the more interrogation you present against your friend’s story, the more "accidental" events occur in order to make the story more feasible. I believe that any reasonable individual would find such a story at least a bit controverted if not suspect of entire fabrication. While there are those who may actually consider the projected screws as potential and convincing evidence, many more would consider such evidence simply insufficient for the theory of the ship to hold necessary warrant.

    Granted, that all things are possible (so long as God is inclusive within existential paradigm) not all things are potentially probabilistic. When it comes to evolution, the odds of randomized and unsystematic life erupting into an extant life force are far more improbable then the story of the ship unveiled by your imaginary friend. According to the renown astronomer David Block the possibility for life to emanate on earth is comparable to holding a bat blindfolded and aiming at a distant target at least 1 billion light-years away while actually hitting it bull’s-eye.....think of the probabilistic reality! As I would be willing to extensively delve into the rationale of theistic evolution or even Darwinian evolution, time simply does not permit for all the research gathered. Might I recommend reading books by author and astrophysicist Hugh Ross in regard to this matter?

    God Bless.
  • You are using probability, and you know if God wanted it that way the probability would be equal to 1.
    But that is not what I am talking about. Give me theology, philosophy, Bible I am not worried about math.
  • [quote author=davidschanter link=board=1;threadid=4862;start=30#msg66306 date=1169077460]
    I will admit that i do not know much about evolution. I have only been studying it in my APBIO cl*** so im still at a basic level. My teacher believes in God, but he also thinks evolution is valid. I thought to myself thatit isn't possible to have both, and i thought my teacher was confused.

    if your teacher is that wa, you shouldn't. you should always have a solid faith and ask quesion to get that if so.


    What is more important the body we are in or the breath of life which God put in us?
    Bentbaba don't u think we would be equal to monkies without the breath of life which God said he breathed into our nostrils?
    Or are we superior without the breath of God?


    Genesis 2: 7
    the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


    there wouldn't be a body if there wasn't the breath of life, or the breath of God. it clearlly say that above. also the verse mentions that men is dust. with the breath of God , living being.

    DUST + Breath of God = Living Being

    DUST - Breath of God = Dust again

    monkies or anyother creature on earth has never recieved the spirit or the breath of God to be as valuable as us. that's why they don't have souls or spirits, conscience, or our intelegent mind. also like i said before, God made man to rule over the earth, and it's inhapetent and he gave all the power he needs. so if that was so, why would He, God, make him similar to the monkey anything else on earth?!!!!
  • Mina you just grasped my point. What makes man superior is the breath of God. That is why he is not equal to a monkey.
    Are you sure there would be no body without the breath of God? Because I don't think that you can be sure.
    I think it could have happened in steps if God wanted it to (not against the bible), and i could be just as right as you could be.
  • [quote author=davidschanter link=board=1;threadid=4862;start=30#msg66342 date=1169156387]
    Mina you just grasped my point. What makes man superior is the breath of God. That is why he is not equal to a monkey.



    yes,
  • You can study as many theories as is required, as long as you won't find yourself one day in a contradicting position with God. It is neither necessary to force an agreement within the Bible with whatever you study or what's currently being globally forcifully teached. God is the true reference not the other way around.

    Evolution has but very scant real scientific evidence. It is a fabrication of man with uncountable lose ends and important gaps of missing links.

    It is the theory that itself evolutes because of so called recent evidences of DNA structures they have found, but even more recently it is well known that the theory got stuck in more enigmatic controversies. Furthermore it is known to real scientists that the way they measure time in millions is extremely inaccurate.

    Jesus Christ prove that He created man's body just from dust when He created new eyes to the born blind from mud (the eye is the most controversial unprovable organ in the concepts of the evolution theory) in a matter of few minutes not ages of evolutional changes, because as Creator He can. Jesus did not use a monkey to replicate its eyes to cure the born blind!

    The problem with this kind of evolution theories is that non scientists and atheists contribute a lot to the general confusion. The author of the theory was himself more of a thinker than a true scientist because he relied on unproven and missing facts and built his theory on weak grounds. He had a close collaborator who, after first agreeing with him, left him along the way with clear scientific disagreement. How would the theory explain retrograde (or to lesser) evolution? it cannot.

    If you believe what God communicates to us you cannot possibly agree with this theory: the notion of spirit cannot coexist with the evolution theory.

    Does the DNA carry the characteristics of the spirit? that it evoluted from lower species? they say physical bodies, may be but spirit? Science can only define life by physical characteristics and behavior depicted by living creatures but cannot find the essence of life or explain it or find out what the soul actually is.

    Another thing, when God created the creatures that fly all together and that swim and that walk also, this is strikingly against the theory of evolution, because if we take the flying creatures as example, they do not belong to the same species: you evidently find insects, birds, mammals and even plants that fly. For other environments the same situation applies. Now what about that.

    I suggest you study it in a neutral manner as one aspect of science you should know of and/or have to study, understanding the fact it doesn't hold well.

    God bless you.
  • I like your response John. Especially your contemplation on the miracle of the blind man.
    I am still a little bit confused on the part with the spirit and the body.
  • John_S2000, Nice points!
    I was trying to make the same points bas what can we say..... ::)!!
  • hey davidschanter,

    Please forgive me if it seemed like i was arguing...that really wasn't my intention. I treated this topic as a debate, and a debate involves rebuttal...that's all. My responses weren't intended to be an attack on you or anyone else believe me...and if that's how they were interpreted, then i apologise.

    btw, what i was responding to was something that someone else had written, not you.

    God bless you and pray for me
  • Sorry bentBABAyasooa`, but you replied well.

    I meant evolution talks about bodies. To simplify, since a human is both body and soul, while the theory cannot prove or explain evolution of the soul.
  • Yea I agree. Science can't come close to how the spirit works.
    Anyway thanks for that insight.

    To Cherry: ok I hope we're cool lol
  • Ok I just learned that the there is a sound in the atmosphere that is am echo of the Big Bang. Anyone have any insights?
  • Ok I just learned that the there is a sound in the atmosphere that is am echo of the Big Bang. Anyone have any insights?

    if i remember correctly from high school physics... sound doesn't travel in space! how could they hear it to this day if there are no air particles to transmit the sound wave???
  • Well the way the sound travels is beyond me. I just researched it on the net and found articles on it.
  • try to google "sound waves" and see what u get... here is what i got:


    <sound waves> are created by the vibration of an object, which causes the air surrounding it to vibrate. The vibrating air then causes the human eardrum to vibrate, which the brain interprets as sound.

    so for the human brain to interpret the sound... u need the vibrating air molecules....

    now google "space sound"... here is what i got:


    Sound travels in waves like light or heat does, but unlike them, sound travels by making molecules vibrate. So, in order for sound to travel, there has to be something with molecules for it to travel through. On Earth, sound travels to your ears by vibrating air molecules. In deep space, the large empty areas between stars and planets, there are no molecules to vibrate. There is no sound there

    hence... there is no sound!!! how could they say there is "echo" of the big bang?? if echo is just sound being bounced off close objects..... not mentioning there are no objects to make the sound echo :D

    can you refer me to the articles u are talking about? i would like to read it.
    thanks.
  • can you refer me to the articles u are talking about? i would like to read it.

    Mothakaf hadratak awy ha? :P
  • I don't know which one to put. I just search Big Bang echo and found a bunch of stuff.
  • Not to be intrusive,

    But recapitulate for me agian, how does the collocation of particles in the atmopshere (or if in refrence to space-- dark matter) affect evolutionary theory and it's ramification upon theological grounds? That is to say, are we still on the same chord here in regard to this discussion? We might in fact be, but I seemed to have lost track.

    Thanks and God bless.
  • It is just scientific theories, and whether or not they go against the teaching of the Bible. Thats all.
Sign In or Register to comment.