creationism is the truth
-
nonono......i was saying i like 'morale stories' they often have implications of life. I lv these stories.Originally posted by Icemoon:na bei .. i was trying to be nice to him .. and he was angry at my reply?
*sigh* i told you i got poor expression skills.....now you know what i mean?? -
i tot bible in itself is a written evidence? and you said the evidence doesnt have evidences......sounds correct hor.........Originally posted by the.owl:bible has no evidence at all. -
na bei .. i was trying to be nice to him .. and he was angry at my reply?
do you need to swear? -
No they're not. I know quite a few j.ws, and they're pretty nice chaps.Originally posted by Fatum:I was ambushed by some jehovah witnesses the other day (not in Singapore, where they are banned) ...
where on earth did you get the idea they were banned in singapore? -
actually, i think they are banned because of their stance towards national service. unlike 7th day adventist who is also anti-arms, 7th day folks can serve NS in a non-armed capacity (eg storeman, clerk, etc)Originally posted by nomood:No they're not. I know quite a few j.ws, and they're pretty nice chaps.
where on earth did you get the idea they were banned in singapore? -
the guy i knew served 3.5mths in DB, followed by a clerical position in Pasir Laba.Originally posted by Chin Eng:actually, i think they are banned because of their stance towards national service. unlike 7th day adventist who is also anti-arms, 7th day folks can serve NS in a non-armed capacity (eg storeman, clerk, etc)
Anyway, the implication of being banned = outlawed/illegal, which isn't the case here in Singapore. -
firstly, evolution has been observed, both retrospectively and actively. There are various evidences which supports the theory of evolution, such as bacterial adaptation, natural selection etc etc. Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils. For example, homosapiens are not known to predate homo erectus, who in turn are not known to predate neanderthals.Originally posted by davidche:i tot bible in itself is a written evidence? and you said the evidence doesnt have evidences......sounds correct hor.........
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved using scientific methods. Most of its arguments centres around the existance of god, which is in itself, another topic altogether. The trouble with taking the bible to be proof and evidence of creationism, is that one would constantly be looking for evidences within an already dubious source, resulting in circular arguments. -
Finally! Someone with the intelligence and substance to support his/her viewpoints.Originally posted by nomood:firstly, evolution has been observed, both retrospectively and actively. There are various evidences which supports the theory of evolution, such as bacterial adaptation, natural selection etc etc. Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils. For example, homosapiens are not known to predate homo erectus, who in turn are not known to predate neanderthals.
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved using scientific methods. Most of its arguments centres around the existance of god, which is in itself, another topic altogether. The trouble with taking the bible to be proof and evidence of creationism, is that one would constantly be looking for evidences within an already dubious source, resulting in circular arguments.
Another well-documented evidence for evolution can be found in Galapagos islands. The beak length of finches changes within a short span of few decades in order to adapt to the different seeds they feed on. The rapid evolutionary change was so noticable that this is one of the keystone foundation to evolution. -
bacterial adaptation?? thought this is mutation?Originally posted by nomood:firstly, evolution has been observed, both retrospectively and actively. There are various evidences which supports the theory of evolution, such as bacterial adaptation, natural selection etc etc. Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils. For example, homosapiens are not known to predate homo erectus, who in turn are not known to predate neanderthals.
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved using scientific methods. Most of its arguments centres around the existance of god, which is in itself, another topic altogether. The trouble with taking the bible to be proof and evidence of creationism, is that one would constantly be looking for evidences within an already dubious source, resulting in circular arguments.
natural selection?? survivial of the fitness? this is a survival, as the says goes, "the winner of the rat race (fitness) is still a rat".
And learning a new skill don't count as evolve.
and please,
evolution is not observable, simply as the theory goes, it takes a long period of time before its noticeable, hence given the short lifespan of human, we are just around too short to observe evolution in action. (to be fair, creation theory also not obserable, unless one can find a timemachine and goes back to the begining)
"Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils"; this is the only good support evolution have on its side to show glimpse of the events that may have unfolds based on logical deductions/reasonings and some creative imaginations (have to have some imagination to imagine how the dino looks like and how they behave ...etc) -
right on the nail. i tend to share the same sentiments on this issue. the flatland analogy represents this view best i reckonOriginally posted by nomood:Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved using scientific methods. Most of its arguments centres around the existance of god, which is in itself, another topic altogether. The trouble with taking the bible to be proof and evidence of creationism, is that one would constantly be looking for evidences within an already dubious source, resulting in circular arguments. -
True that learning a new skills does not count in evolution, but adaptation of bacteria is counted as micro-evolution. Just look at the many different resistance strains of bacteria. They may not be a different species but they're not far from it. The winner of the rat raceS, when given enough time, will slowly deviate from its original appearance and evolve into a new species.Originally posted by vince69:bacterial adaptation?? thought this is mutation?
natural selection?? survivial of the fitness? this is a survival, as the says goes, "the winner of the rat race (fitness) is still a rat".
And learning a new skill don't count as evolve.
and please,
evolution is not observable, simply as the theory goes, it takes a long period of time before its noticeable, hence given the short lifespan of human, we are just around too short to observe evolution in action.
"Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils"; this is the only good support evolution have on its side to show glimpse of the events that may have unfolds based on logical deductions/reasonings and some creative imaginations (have to have some imagination to imagine how the dino looks like and how they behave ...etc)
Evolution IS OBSERVABLE! I've already explained how finches were noted to have their beak lengths change over just decades and new species of microbacteria developing in labs. Our lifespan might be short but good documentation can contribute to science.
Take another look at animals still living. Bats have wings made not from feathers but from membrane, spanning between their "fingertips" - evidence of their mammalian ancestry. Whales aren't fishes cos' they were evolved from mammals too. They have rudimentary hind limbs left - best living fossils we can observe.
If creationism is accountable for all living things, why build creatures that have adaptive features? If creationism is the truth, why have animals that have rudimentary features that are totally useless? -
You seem really passionate about disproving evolution.Originally posted by vince69:bacterial adaptation?? thought this is mutation?
natural selection?? survivial of the fitness? this is a survival, as the says goes, "the winner of the rat race (fitness) is still a rat".
And learning a new skill don't count as evolve.
and please,
evolution is not observable, simply as the theory goes, it takes a long period of time before its noticeable, hence given the short lifespan of human, we are just around too short to observe evolution in action. (to be fair, creation theory also not obserable, unless one can find a timemachine and goes back to the begining)
"Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils"; this is the only good support evolution have on its side to show glimpse of the events that may have unfolds based on logical deductions/reasonings and some creative imaginations (have to have some imagination to imagine how the dino looks like and how they behave ...etc)
I'd like to argue that, but before that could we please have you state your stance on evidences regarding creationism first? I'd rather clear that up first before we go into an entire tirade of arguments only to have you say that you think that creationism is baloney as well.
Kaister makes a few very good point about evolution which I think you should consider before you make your posts.
As a sidenote (?) my main point was to reply to the davidche/the.owl argument about evidences. Where scientific approach is concerned, the bible is NOT a credible evidence for this debate. -
Creationism is fake cos it has no evidences.Originally posted by nomood:You seem really passionate about disproving evolution.
I'd like to argue that, but before that could we please have you state your stance on evidences regarding creationism first? I'd rather clear that up first before we go into an entire tirade of arguments only to have you say that you think that creationism is baloney as well.
Kaister makes a few very good point about evolution which I think you should consider before you make your posts.
As a sidenote (?) my main point was to reply to the davidche/the.owl argument about evidences. Where scientific approach is concerned, the bible is NOT a credible evidence for this debate.
No way to prove creationism is the truth.
Forget about the discussion.
-
if creationism is creationsim then what is wrong about building creatures that have adaptive features?Originally posted by kaister:True that learning a new skills does not count in evolution, but adaptation of bacteria is counted as micro-evolution. Just look at the many different resistance strains of bacteria. They may not be a different species but they're not far from it. The winner of the rat raceS, when given enough time, will slowly deviate from its original appearance and evolve into a new species.
Evolution IS OBSERVABLE! I've already explained how finches were noted to have their beak lengths change over just decades and new species of microbacteria developing in labs. Our lifespan might be short but good documentation can contribute to science.
Take another look at animals still living. Bats have wings made not from feathers but from membrane, spanning between their "fingertips" - evidence of their mammalian ancestry. Whales aren't fishes cos' they were evolved from mammals too. They have rudimentary hind limbs left - best living fossils we can observe.
If creationism is accountable for all living things, why build creatures that have adaptive features? If creationism is the truth, why have animals that have rudimentary features that are totally useless?
Since it is created and no one holds the right to judge God's creations.
God probrably wanted the creations to look neutral so that there will at least be a difference between the two parties supporting their theories, creationism and evolution. -
Dubious source? But all if not most(due to misinterpretations) authors' accounts of God and their experiences dont contridict.Originally posted by nomood:firstly, evolution has been observed, both retrospectively and actively. There are various evidences which supports the theory of evolution, such as bacterial adaptation, natural selection etc etc. Retrospective evidences includes examination of fossils. For example, homosapiens are not known to predate homo erectus, who in turn are not known to predate neanderthals.
Creationism, on the other hand, cannot be proved using scientific methods. Most of its arguments centres around the existance of god, which is in itself, another topic altogether. The trouble with taking the bible to be proof and evidence of creationism, is that one would constantly be looking for evidences within an already dubious source, resulting in circular arguments.
To think that the bible has existed and survived for more than 2000 years with 60+ writers not contridicting and in actual fact shui3 huo3 xiang1 rong2 is in itself a very fit-to-be source dont you think?
I have more to say./....
The authors were inspired by God to write the bible. This can be proven from the 1200 year period of different people with different viewpoints(ranging from doctors to fishermen) all talking about the same theme
There is also plenary inspirition and Verbal inspiration but i shall not elaborate on that since its for christians. -
Pls lah Davidche... try a more intelligent arguement?Originally posted by davidche:if creationism is creationsim then what is wrong about building creatures that have adaptive features?
Since it is created and no one holds the right to judge God's creations.
God probrably wanted the creations to look neutral so that there will at least be a difference between the two parties supporting their theories, creationism and evolution.
How to have a meaningful debate when you attribute everything to God and refuse to accept everything else?
Must present your viewpoints/evidence mah...
I know I'm arguing for evolution, but I also know tons of evidence that speaks against evolution. Don't tell me people from this forum can't hold an proper argument? Walk over, no challenge at all...
-
it wasnt my will to argue on that cos its quite not withstandable in itself.Originally posted by kaister:Pls lah Davidche... try a more intelligent arguement?
How to have a meaningful debate when you attribute everything to God and refuse to accept everything else?
Must present your viewpoints/evidence mah...
I know I'm arguing for evolution, but I also know tons of evidence that speaks against evolution. Don't tell me people from this forum can't hold an proper argument? Walk over, no challenge at all... -
I feel that wer are currently engaging in a circular arguement.Originally posted by davidche:Dubious source? But all if not most(due to misinterpretations) authors' accounts of God and their experiences dont contridict.
To think that the bible has existed and survived for more than 2000 years with 60+ writers not contridicting and in actual fact shui3 huo3 xiang1 rong2 is in itself a very fit-to-be source dont you think?
I have more to say./....
The authors were inspired by God to write the bible. This can be proven from the 1200 year period of different people with different viewpoints(ranging from doctors to fishermen) all talking about the same theme
There is also plenary inspirition and Verbal inspiration but i shall not elaborate on that since its for christians.
If you want to know whether archeology verifys with scripture, can go buy a book on that.
If you want to discuss, wer are basically only presenting our viewpoints.
And theres no point saying who is wrong and who is correct cos if it could end with a result, it will long have been made clear.
One needs wisdom to understand God's word(truth) and to believe in him.
Truth does not come from arguements but by the wisdom of God.
Hope you understand -
oh well .... all I can is Gents, be glad that we're able to have this discussion at all, if it were another religion, you'll get charged with sedition and dragged away in the middle of the night, or incite a religious riot or something ....
and for that I salute the Christians who're open minded enough about this over here ...
we are all seeking to know the "truth" over here, whatever form it takes .... yes, even me, an atheist ...
cheers -
Originally posted by davidche:I feel that wer are currently engaging in a circular arguement.
If you want to know whether archeology verifys with scripture, can go buy a book on that.
If you want to discuss, wer are basically only presenting our viewpoints.
And theres no point saying who is wrong and who is correct cos if it could end with a result, it will long have been made clear.
One needs wisdom to understand God's word(truth) and to believe in him.
Truth does not come from arguements but by the wisdom of God.
Hope you understand
Alright lah... I agree that these arguements lead to no where. Supporters of evolution can come up a thousand and one evidence and still not convince the believers of creationism because it's not a question of proving but a question of faith for them.Originally posted by Fatum:oh well .... all I can is Gents, be glad that we're able to have this discussion at all, if it were another religion, you'll get charged with sedition and dragged away in the middle of the night, or incite a religious riot or something ....
and for that I salute the Christians who're open minded enough about this over here ...
we are all seeking to know the "truth" over here, whatever form it takes .... yes, even me, an atheist ...
cheers
When scientists point out in stone-cold facts that how creationism don't work, christians will counter with heart-felt passion instilled upon them by their religion. A talk between chicken and duck...
Then again, I always enjoyed debates like this and it is true that Christians are open to discussions and are plenty of fun. Cheerios to them!
-
Luckily you are not the mod 'cos you are really a disgrace to the real mods who advocate and faciliate meaningful discussions. It is 'cos people like you that's why many Christians, save for their theology, are still stuck in a medieval understanding of science.Originally posted by davidche:I feel that wer are currently engaging in a circular arguement.
If you want to know whether archeology verifys with scripture, can go buy a book on that.
If you want to discuss, wer are basically only presenting our viewpoints.
And theres no point saying who is wrong and who is correct cos if it could end with a result, it will long have been made clear.
One needs wisdom to understand God's word(truth) and to believe in him.
Truth does not come from arguements but by the wisdom of God.
Hope you understand
In your mind, you already form your conclusion. So regardless of what others say or present, you just dismiss it with some sloppy arguments.
May I say an argument or debate is to engage your opponent intellectually and in the process learn some new things or further/refine your own understanding.
The operative word is process. -
Does God give you the wisdom to understand science?Originally posted by davidche:One needs wisdom to understand God's word(truth) and to believe in him.
Truth does not come from arguements but by the wisdom of God.
I think He did .. but you threw it away. -
disprove evolution? you think too highly of me, no, I am not about disproving evolution, more about stating what evolution is not.Originally posted by nomood:You seem really passionate about disproving evolution.
I'd like to argue that, but before that could we please have you state your stance on evidences regarding creationism first? I'd rather clear that up first before we go into an entire tirade of arguments only to have you say that you think that creationism is baloney as well.
Kaister makes a few very good point about evolution which I think you should consider before you make your posts.
As a sidenote (?) my main point was to reply to the davidche/the.owl argument about evidences. Where scientific approach is concerned, the bible is NOT a credible evidence for this debate.
1) its not about mutation (example:different strains of the flu virus, is mutation, not evolution)
2) its not genetic manupilation of genes in the lab
3) its not natural adaption of behaviour for survival, its call survival of the fitest.
evolution is beyond all these, its one specie evolving into another new specie, this normally occur over time.
example:
H5N1 flus virus mutating into H5N1X (whatever you call it), don't count.
a "monkey" (not sure the exact term) evolving into human, counts.
a tadpole changing into a frog don't count
a fish evolving into a frog counts
while evolution theory is based on the observation of fossil records, creation theory is rooted in human beliefs. neither can be observed by the naked eye (in short no one really observe them as they happen).
evolution theory appeal more to the logical mind, as human logic were involved, while creation theory appeal more to the religious community as faith is involved.
while there are volumns of writtings on evolution theory (some may even conflicts with each others), the creation theory (based on christians belief) summarised into one sentance "God spoke and its done" (not much for a theory huh?) -
Vince69, I highly advise that you read up more on evolution before you post on them. Obviously you didn't read my previous posts on how small changes can lead to species change and how we don't only observe evolution from fossils.
In response to your comments,
Mutation is the source of evolution. Why are we all different? Cos' of minor mutations and genetic recombinations. When some bad event happens (eg, a plague), it may wipe out many people without resistance to the disease. However, few will survive because they were lucky enough to possess a gene, from mutations, inherited from their parents. These people will reproduce and the next generation of humans will be immune to the plague. Over time and given enough events, the human species as a whole will evolve into another species, different from what they started with.Originally posted by vince69:disprove evolution? you think too highly of me, no, I am not about disproving evolution, more about stating what evolution is not.
1) its not about mutation (example:different strains of the flu virus, is mutation, not evolution)
A very similar example can be seen in finches on Galopagos islands. Please read my previous posts.
You didn't read my previous post about rudimentary hind limbs in whales right? Again, evidence of evolution CAN BE OBSERVED in animals. If you find my examples too difficult for you to understand, please feel your own bum. There's a tailbone present (Coccyx), a vivid reminder that we were descented from apes. The tailbone serves no function in us, why is it there then? It is a product of evolution.Originally posted by vince69:while evolution theory is based on the observation of fossil records, creation theory is rooted in human beliefs. neither can be observed by the naked eye (in short no one really observe them as they happen).
Please kindly give examples of how some evolution theory contradicts each other. Let's have an intellectual debate for once.Originally posted by vince69:while there are volumns of writtings on evolution theory (some may even conflicts with each others), the creation theory (based on christians belief) summarised into one sentance "God spoke and its done" (not much for a theory huh?)
But you're right. Creation theory isn't much. At least some of creationist provide better entertainment with their attempts to justify themselves -
why we are different? the Bible says, we are all uniquely created, that's why (from a creationist POV).Originally posted by kaister:Vince69, I highly advise that you read up more on evolution before you post on them. Obviously you didn't read my previous posts on how small changes can lead to species change and how we don't only observe evolution from fossils.
In response to your comments,
Mutation is the source of evolution. Why are we all different? Cos' of minor mutations and genetic recombinations. When some bad event happens (eg, a plague), it may wipe out many people without resistance to the disease. However, few will survive because they were lucky enough to possess a gene, from mutations, inherited from their parents. These people will reproduce and the next generation of humans will be immune to the plague. Over time and given enough events, the human species as a whole will evolve into another species, different from what they started with.
Please kindly give examples of how some evolution theory contradicts each other. Let's have an intellectual debate for once.
But you're right. Creation theory isn't much. At least some of creationist provide better entertainment with their attempts to justify themselves
human to human is not evolved, its adaption.
by your arguement, every changes can be proof of evolution, but how does this deduction comes about? pls read the underliing assumption that forms these deduction.
Human specie as a whole will evolved into another species? still an unproven theory, right? and the basic assumption for this deduction? evolution theory.
oh, till this really happens, its should be MAY evolve, not WILL evolved
my frustration with all these evolution evidence is that its a circular argument.
based on evolution theory, we deduce from observation, A evolve into B, hence a proof for evolution.
conflicting views? ok, life begins on earth or from space? from simple single cell or complex multi-cell (where do these cells come from?)
what is the trigger, random or specific? ...etc
while having conflicting views does not in anyway disprove the theory, its does shows that there are still alot more to debate and understand about.
pls understand, I said "Creation theory isn't much to debate about" not that its isn't much.
something to ponder about (a personal view)
evolution theory starts from the question "How do we get here?"
creation theory starts from the question "why are we here?"
anyway, there will be no end to this, I will be stopping here for now.