P
phantasm
Guest
Uhm yeah, I knew that, your making an assumption and when you make an assumption…
- Status
T
Th0t
Guest
Most scientific studies are based on THEORY theory of evolution, theory of cells, etc…
plus which person who asked the question why and where did we come from really have a right to say that he/she is RIGHT in what he/she said? who is to say he/she is right just because a lot of people say “that makes sense to ME so it must be right”? no…
lets say that you (Phantasm) are walking in a desert and stumble upon a watch. are you literally going to think that with the time, the sand and rocks and materials hitting each other suddenly made that watch? or are you going to believe that someone had to have made that watch?
plus if cells reproduce from one original cell where did the original cell come from? if we literally come from monkeys, where did the first monkey come from and how did it reproduce? if the earth literally was just made from the cause of the Big Bang (which is also a theory) happen to be in the exact place that by one more centimeter closer to the sun we’d fry, and one more centimeter away we’d freeze?
Human beings right from birth strive to find the truth and only God can provide that proof. Only the Father of existence. He is a father and He loves us UNCONDITIONALLY. if youre a father do you love your kid unconditionally? Atheists always take out the Father part and blame God for everything that’s happening in the world. So if your child that was born from your wife became a serial killer, how would you feel if people began blaming you? was it your fault? or your child’s fault?
Atheists view of life = Born, Live (learn), Did something amazing in life SOME people will get to hear, read, or see about it, die, get buried, end of story.
Christians view of life = Born (blessing), Live (learn) become the lost son ( Lc 15, 11-32), Re-born spiritually, Live (trying to keep Christ’s teachings), Do something inspired from God in life that SOME people will get to hear, read, or see about, Die, await judgment, if lived how Christ wanted me to, share in His glory in Heaven forever praising God my creator [HAPPY ENDING], if stayed a lost son suffer eternally in Hell, [SAD ENDING].
Even an atheist has a heart and knows he/she wants a happy ending in their life. Why else would the Disney movies be so motivational?
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” ~ Saint Thomas Aquinas
“If you don’t know about love, then you had better look at a crucifix fast.” ~ Fr John Corapi
plus which person who asked the question why and where did we come from really have a right to say that he/she is RIGHT in what he/she said? who is to say he/she is right just because a lot of people say “that makes sense to ME so it must be right”? no…
lets say that you (Phantasm) are walking in a desert and stumble upon a watch. are you literally going to think that with the time, the sand and rocks and materials hitting each other suddenly made that watch? or are you going to believe that someone had to have made that watch?
plus if cells reproduce from one original cell where did the original cell come from? if we literally come from monkeys, where did the first monkey come from and how did it reproduce? if the earth literally was just made from the cause of the Big Bang (which is also a theory) happen to be in the exact place that by one more centimeter closer to the sun we’d fry, and one more centimeter away we’d freeze?
Human beings right from birth strive to find the truth and only God can provide that proof. Only the Father of existence. He is a father and He loves us UNCONDITIONALLY. if youre a father do you love your kid unconditionally? Atheists always take out the Father part and blame God for everything that’s happening in the world. So if your child that was born from your wife became a serial killer, how would you feel if people began blaming you? was it your fault? or your child’s fault?
Atheists view of life = Born, Live (learn), Did something amazing in life SOME people will get to hear, read, or see about it, die, get buried, end of story.
Christians view of life = Born (blessing), Live (learn) become the lost son ( Lc 15, 11-32), Re-born spiritually, Live (trying to keep Christ’s teachings), Do something inspired from God in life that SOME people will get to hear, read, or see about, Die, await judgment, if lived how Christ wanted me to, share in His glory in Heaven forever praising God my creator [HAPPY ENDING], if stayed a lost son suffer eternally in Hell, [SAD ENDING].
Even an atheist has a heart and knows he/she wants a happy ending in their life. Why else would the Disney movies be so motivational?
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” ~ Saint Thomas Aquinas
“If you don’t know about love, then you had better look at a crucifix fast.” ~ Fr John Corapi
P
phantasm
Guest
I see, like a parent will pretend to look for their poorly hidden toddler in a game of hide and seek!
That’s a great explanation, he was looking for Adam, for Adams benefit, just before he kicked Adam and all of man kind out of the garden for eternity!
P
phantasm
Guest
Well, when you explain in that way, it makes perfect sense.Oh, I forgot to mention,It was Satan talking through the serpint, not an actual talking serpint. And it wasn’t an apple tree. I don’t know where that came from.
P
phantasm
Guest
C
chris_molter
Guest
Ultimately, yes.
Um. If God is eternal, then He was there before the Mosaic Covenant, right? So explain to me again why you think we think human life before then would be meaningless? Isn’t this basically the same straw man argument re: indigenous tribes that never heard the Gospel?
Hasn’t that question been answered already?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Translation:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
phantasm
Guest
P
phantasm
Guest
Because, posters on this forum have been telling me that life has no meaning without God. They don’t mean any God, like Vishnu, they’re talking about the Christian God.
R
ready
Guest
In my course on Darwinism our professor told us that the theory of evolution of Darwin also purports common ancestry and that common ancestry meant that we descended from apes and shared a missing link with them [afterward thought to be Lucy, the Austrelopithecus Aferensis (sp?)]…what I did not agree with in his theory. I believe you are wrong when you say that Darwin’s theory did not take things so far as to suggest we descended from apes - by what my professor said.
K
kesa82
Guest
CORRECT ! I plead guilty.
P
phantasm
Guest
Yes, a descension, correct, we share a common ancestor. You are correct, we did not come directly from Apes or monkeys or chimps…rather, we all share a common ancestor.
How can that fact be lost in any translation. For your education, as it seems you keep refering to some course you took, that obviously was used terminology that is no longer in use within the scientific community.
wiki…'A popular term used to designate transitional forms is “missing links”. The term tends to be used in the popular media, but is avoided in the scientific press as it is inaccurate and confusing. In reality, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions.
Your course and professor seem to have been stuck in the 1800’s and had yet to catch up to modern evolutionary theory.
Perhaps it was a course on Darwins original theory and not on modern evolutionary theory as it exists today?
Sources from wikipedia, I hope everyone will visit and learn, rather than simply uttering ’ nope, I don’t believe it’ and yet, know nothing of the theory of evolution, besides what you heard from your great Aunt Maude!
You should actually use ‘transitional forms’ of which there are a multitude.
It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils.[5][3][6] Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature,[5] or according to Donald Prothero, may be a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory.[3] Prothero has called that claim the “favourite lie” of creationists and further said that it was “manifestly untrue”.[3]
A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[7]. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. **Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be “caught in the act” as it were. **Creationists often argue against this, claiming it is merely a convenient way to explain the lack of ‘snapshot’ fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progress in research and new discoveries continue to fill in such gaps, and in modern thinking evolution is pictured as a bush of lines of development, not the simplistic ladder of progress that was common before Darwin published his theory and still influences popular opinion.
P
phantasm
Guest
A course on Darwinism ( a term that is not in use to explain modern evolutionary theory, is not what one would call a course that would bring you up to speed on present day modern evolutionary theory)
Just so you know…
I should have been tipped off with your insistance on using the term missing link and Lucy.
There are an absolute plethora of transitional fossils that prove evolutionary theory as a fact.
C
chris_molter
Guest
And as far as Christians are concerned, in the ultimate scheme of things, that’s true. However, I’m saying that God, being eternal, was there even prior to the Mosaic Covenant. So Christians should not believe that man lived a meaningless existence prior to the advent of Judaism. Nor can we assume their salvation was in peril due to their invincible ignorance (which is why I brought up the whole native tribe idea).
Sorry if I wasn’t being clear. I’m lacking caffeine this morning
M
MarysGirls
Guest
My bad. I don’t think I was being very clear. I know perfectly well what a theory is. What I meant was gravity has moved up to a scientific law, while evolution is yet a theory. Sorry about that.No it is not called the fact of gravity, it is called the theory of gravity.
You confuse the word theory with how it is used in science. ;
a theory provides a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of** facts and observations** about the natural world.
In science, theories are not unsupported ideas or wild opinions or gut feelings.
It is the law of gravity that an object will drop to the ground if you let it go. What explains that law?
THE THEORY OF GRAVITY!
Do you also argue against being facts, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory, decision theory, music theory, circuit theory, acoustic theory, quantam field theory or number theory?
Please, do not say anything even closely resembling that again, it is so wrong.
M
MarysGirls
Guest
Agriculture was invented in the Middle East.Are you saying that Agriculture wasn’t invented 10,000 years ago?
Are you saying that recorded history of the Chinese JIAHU culture in the year 7,000 B.C., thousands of years before this tower, didn’t really exist?
Your not saying that, are you?
As for the Chinese JIAHU culture, I’m not saying that it doesn’t exist, but it is very possible that they got the dating wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.
M
MarysGirls
Guest
No, more like that chocolate-covered kid that LilyM mentioned.
M
MarysGirls
Guest
What, is that supposed to be sarcasm?
M
MarysGirls
Guest
Such as . . .?
R
ready
Guest
I took the course 20 years ago and afterwards watched PBS get into Darwinian evolution and I adamantly disagree that such a theory is fact. Hundreds of years must pass with approval from the society of scientists for Darwinian evolution to be made a law or “fact.”
I didn’t buy into what the scientists were saying about Lucy then, and I don’t buy into what I hear on PBS now either.
- Status