-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Geico? I heard signing up is so easy that even a caveman can do it.
Yes, my cousin, I’m one here.
And I support the view that God — the God I worship, His name is Jehovah; I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses — created animals and plants “according to their kinds”.....
It’s true the Bible doesn’t define the term “kinds”, although the Bible must be implying a separation, or differences, between these organisms...otherwise, it wouldn’t have used the phrase.
(I tend to think it’s the “family” taxonomic category that the Bible is referring to. “According to their families”....but back when the Bible was written, there was no defined taxonomy.)
So evolution does happen — that’s why we can have different breeds of dogs and cats — and within families it can - and does - occur.
But to say that all life descended from a Common Ancestor.... that is not based on solid evidence. Identical genes found in unrelated organisms are interpreted as “Shared genes”, but this is not really evidence; only that God imbued other creatures with identical genes performing the same tasks.
Unfortunately, modern science (unlike Newton, Boyle, Kepler, etc.) only proposes natural forces as the cause of everything. Things they can’t test for, such as the supernatural, they ignore. So they take the idea of evolution, a limited process that occurs naturally, and run with it, saying it created every life form we discover!
And I agree w/ you, that humans are unrelated to any apes! Our mental, emotional, and spiritual abilities, compared to any other organisms, create the largest gulf ever observed between any life forms!
Take care, my friend.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Why don't we find cats or humans or whales or rabbits in older geologic layers? If everything arose at once, then we should see humans and elephants and stegosaurus and ichthyostega all intermingling.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Are you the creator then advising as a human thinker why God by mass earth radiation release mutated the cell natural bio cell ?
Claiming in history the same cell replacement ownership. Ownership is first highest in any order lost that ability. Science says occurred before.
Quoting as a human in their owned highest cell replacement ownership. We are still alive owning self highest cell replacement as God mass cold is still present.
And then advise the scientific sink hole inventor that he is not God as a man after you described O falling by spiral irradiation to ground as O into G spiral holding O then splitting D then falling,?
Quoting how G O D did it as cell removal seeing a planet is mass. Is solid O body. Is not the descriptive analogy in logic as stone or planet the GOD inference.
But a conscious statement about how God by irradiating science cause mutated us not only today but before?
Looking back is a referral in life that it occurred before. Seeing science by cosmic law says you cannot displace form from its quantum. Which is only bio human correct form.
Personal owner cell replacement.
Machines never owned spatial gas heaven support as mother of science status.
When a subject is being discussed. Past conditions. Then the subject quotes just past conditions.
Can you say more about these "incorrect expressions?"
Darwin's theory of natural selection is pretty straightforward. Do you not believe people can breed selected plants and animals to bring out desirable features? Do you think Chihuahua dogs and maize always existed? Do you think those ancestry research companies are all hoaxes? Do you think bacteria acquiring resistance to antibiotics is also a hoax? Did you not study the peppered moth in high school biology?
This is all based on evolution.
Loaai, I don't think you understand how widespread, voluminous and consilient the evidence is, from dozens of different disciplines. We see it in our everyday lives, we use it, we can observe it in action. The whole field of biology makes no sense without evolution.
Before you assert an opinion I think you should familiarise yourself with what evolution is, how it works, and the various mechanisms involved.
It is verified. It's right there in the DNA. Foxes, wolves and poodles are canids, Lions, leopards and house cats are felids, and chimps, gorillas and humans are apes. That's just a taxonomic fact.
What's your take on our taxonomy, if you think the standard model is wrong? How would you modify our cladogram?
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Today human life exists from small sperm and ovary that conceive cells that grow into a human.
A scientist looks at the HUMAN form his discussion topic. Explains as. Human in biology reviews why it is changed. A changed human.
They look at deceased mutated old bones claiming looks ape like. But is human.
In the same sentence you then are meant to study the compared life bone form of a living ape owning the same amount of unnatural radiation that did not support natural growth.
Darwin did not discuss how an equally healthy ape de evolved its body form. He discussed a medical condition that a mutated body has to then cope and adapt in a natural environment that supported change.
To discuss loss from a healthy body. Evolved healed adapted is what science is claiming. Only a small natural human DNA community survived the event in history. Healthy state to say human body.
A changed human variable today is an adapted previous human mutation history that by multiple lives overcame and removed weaker cellular status.
Took a very long historic sexual history to remove defective human weak cells.
DNA statement got rid of the rubbish.
We live today by evolution or sexual encounters? Sex. The reason not evolution.
Atmospheric evolution. Same gases put back into mass by wandering star stone particle released gas mass entered space. Ice melted put back water oxygen mass. Natural history owned the gases already which is not evolution.
It is supportive reasoning for cells to become stronger and healthier. A medical report. Not a string biology theory.
But it is a fact. We conform to the definition of "ape." Our anatomy and genetics confirm it.
If we're not apes, what are we? Monkeys? Lemurs? Goats? Again, what's your outline of our taxonomy?
Certainly, and many of the believers also believe in evolution, and a round Earth, and relativity.
Every species has unique features. We're good at language and abstract reasoning, but this has nothing to do with our taxonomy.
Do you believe we were created by magic; poofed into existence in an instant? What evidence is there for such an extraordinary claim?
Which one of these propositions is supported by empirical evidence?
Go well.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
ehh.. Monkey
+ Photoshopped
I know humans who look like that..... In fact these creatures look VERY human.
Last edited:
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
If you believe in this theory then I don't. It's exactly as saying I believe in God but you don't, and that's the main difference between believers and atheists. Thus if you think you're a monkey I don't
Question:
What would convince you that evolution is actually true?
Also, ape and human are classifications. How do you classify apes and humans and do you think that scientists classify apes and humans in the same way that you do? Because it seems like you are objecting with the meaning of labels which scientists do not subscribe to.
Also, have you researched the predictions that the theory of evolution helps scientists to make? Please then explain how the theory of evolution allows predictions to be made successfully if it isn't true.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Welcome to the world of education, science, logic and philosophy.
(And wealth, peace, social security, (sadly, limited) hospitality, tolerance and many liberties.) It may take some time but you'll get used to it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The OP left some time ago. Like most creationists he was merely looking for excuses to believe. He openly stated that he was not interested in learning. Education is the enemy of creationism and today a creationist's only defense is willful ignorance.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Yep, fully agree. But he is 21 so I grant him the folly of youth excuse.
I can understand where he is coming from, having been a creationist myself until a few years ago. The only position creationists can take regarding the issue is to condemn education, as their argument is blatantly anti-intellectual. They look into the actual evidence in bad faith and favour the fringe pseudo-scientists. The complain that when others critique their religion they haven't looked deep enough into it, yet they refuse to do so for the other side.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Though I was never a creationist I used to have my own science denial problem. I used to deny global warming. I noticed that the sources that I used were never quite as good as those that accepted the science could provide. Ironically it was a global warming denier that finally changed my mind. Lord Monckton uses the same sort of dishonest debating techniques that some creationists use. It made me ask why, if the facts are on one's side would one debate in such a manner? Of course he does that because the facts are not on his side.
It is nice to hear from another that saw that his ways were in error.
For my penny's worth, I think that those like @Loaai are often averse to treading the path of knowledge (virtually all of science), especially if it might contradict their current beliefs, and perhaps because they are afraid to do so, and thinking/knowing that all knowledge lies in some particular text (the Qur'an in his case). Not much of an example for finding any truths though, where an open mind might be better. Plenty here with religious beliefs who are not so afraid though.
Welcome @Loaai, by the way.
PS And just like it no doubt takes time to understand any particular religious text, it also takes an enormous amount of time and effort to understand the vast array of knowledge that goes into making the scientific realm, much of which tends to reinforce the accounts and theories of any one area, such that none tend to stand alone in defiance against all reason. Religions, not so much, even though there are plenty to choose from.
Welcome @Loaai, by the way.
PS And just like it no doubt takes time to understand any particular religious text, it also takes an enormous amount of time and effort to understand the vast array of knowledge that goes into making the scientific realm, much of which tends to reinforce the accounts and theories of any one area, such that none tend to stand alone in defiance against all reason. Religions, not so much, even though there are plenty to choose from.
Last edited: