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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
strict creationist can't really accept biology, given that evolution is the underlying foundation connecting all together.
I think you have a belief based on your worldview and your church doctrine coupled with a robust (apparently wilfull) ignorance of science that, combined, IS a denial of science. Your arguments against science are entirely subjective and emotional, which you are free to have, but they are not based on reason and evidence.I agree with @nPeace....
There is so much that is of benefit to us in many fields of science and being anti-evolution doesn't mean being anti-science.
I love science...but I think the idea that dinosaurs can come from microscopic single celled organisms is ridiculous. There is no proof that it ever happened....and when you say that to them, they get all upset and tell you that science is not about "proof"...its about "evidence".......but the evidence is interpreted to fit their theory so can you trust anything they say?
That is so confusing because if you can't prove what you claim, then all you have is a 'belief' that something is true.....that requires 'faith', doesn't it? And we get disparaged for that by them for that very thing. Go figure.
You have to understand the difference between what science can 'prove' and what they can't....because what they can't prove, they suggest in such a way that it sounds like they have. Scientific sleight of hand.
When you consider the gulf between man and animals, we see what is meant by us being "made in God's image and likeness". There is not another creature alive that compares with us.....regardless of what science wants to suggest. Apes are apes, who were also a work of the Creator....but man is unique. His uniqueness cannot be the product of blind chance or random mutations or natural selection or any other supposed mechanism.
We have free will and we are not just programmed by instinct like the entire animal kingdom. We have a level of intelligence that means that we can learn so much from our parents, our peers and mentors, our environment and past experience. We can plan for the future because our intelligence allows us to go there through the faculty of imagination....animals have no real concept of the future...they can be conditioned by past experiences, but they live in the present. Any behaviors that affect their future is carried out automatically.....as if is 'programmed'.
Have you ever run a program that was not designed by someone with an intelligent mind?
Something that is also proof of being made in God's image is our creativity. Animals are often programmed to build their own 'houses or nests, and each one is specific to that creature. Even birds of different varieties will instinctively build the same nests that their parents built before they were hatched.....so how do they know what to build and what to make it out of?
What other creature can create the same kinds of artistry out of talent instead of instinct? What other creature creates theatre, poetry, literature, sculpture or art out of their free will? How are these traits of benefit to any evolutionary survival advantage? Science has suggestions about these things but I personally find them to be most unsatisfying.
What do you think?
It's the difference of what was taught as truth to students (unsuspecting ones, at that) in NY State in the 60's, and what actually IS truth. Anyway, have a good night. I have more questions
later, which I hope you can answer about that theory as it stands now, without the false hypotheses and conjectures about the forms the embryo takes.
Try again. The embryos were not fake. It is a lie to claim that they are.It's the difference of what was taught as truth to students (unsuspecting ones, at that) in NY State in the 60's, and what actually IS truth. Anyway, have a good night. I have more questions
You say we know that. I don't. I believe God gave life, created life. That there are similarities in genes is not to say He did not use these things in creation.
Goodness me! I didn't say embryos were fake.
Maybe you're tired. The DRAWINGS Haeckel imagined about human embryonic growth going through the earlier phases prior to human development, and the theory he proposed about that, were taught as part of the theory of ontegeny recapitulates phylogeny in school. Good night.
You have no excuse not to know.
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Of course I was talking about the drawings. What piques my curiosity is why you continue to lie about the drawings.Goodness me! I didn't say embryos were fake.
Why do you keep saying that God is a liar? The evidence anyway is there in the desert, which geologists have found, so now because of your prejudice, you're saying they lied, too. You're (and your cohort type individuals) are interesting to the point of absurd, sad, and incredible. Sad. I'm glad you brought things up, you are really wearing blinders. I am not asking you to believe in a god you say is a liar. I am bringing up facts which you keep denying. Amazing.
How do you think I am lying about the drawings? And now why don't you tell me that Haeckel's theory was correct in its aspects, all of them. Why don't you also tell me that Haeckel's theory was not taught in the NY public school system, and after you do that, why not say that Gould, although believing in evolution, also lied about what the NYC school system taught him when he said it was being taught when he went to school? OK?
I don't say God is a liar. You do. You do not understand how you do that. You should not make false statements about blinders with such poor reading comprehension.
You keep calling them fake. That was not the case. That was not what Haeckel did wrong. And I said that Gould overreacted.
Even in little bits, such as the recent discovery showing that there were nomadic people where they didn't think there would be is dismissed by you. I am not going into every bit of evidence or lack of it, however the universe itself testifies to the existence of a superpower. As far as I am concerned. Now. And yes, the fact (fact) that most humans make and wear clothing is proof enough for me that after their sin, God made clothes for Adam and Eve. Not elephants or lions. In the meantime, many think mankind's future is in doubt. But the Bible says God will restore the earth as He intended for it to be in the beginning. You might want to read Revelation 21:1-5. Oh, and by the way, lions are beautiful. I like cats, too. Alligators are interesting to look at. They are automatically dressed in glory of sorts.
He did? When he realized he had been mistaught? I don't think he overreacted, you do. He was willing to expose the fraudulent part of Haeckel's teaching and yes, he apparently didn't like the idea that is what the school system was teaching him when he was learning and growing.
So do you think then that embryos in the human womb go through the duck phase? How about dinosaur phase?
Ok so what did Haeckel do wrong?
The problem is that you do not know what evidence and you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence. As a result you are grasping at straws that seem to confirm your myth but really do not. And no, wearing clothing is an excellent example of how you fail. Clothing serves a purpose that has nothing to do with your myth. Go camping in Northern Minnesota in January and you will soon appreciate this fact.
In a rush to publish his first edition instead of drawing separate drawings for some of the embryos that were rather similar to each other he simply used a few drawings more than once. He did not have time to draw all of them. In later editions this was corrected. That was what he did wrong. It was inappropriate, but I would not say that it rises to the level of "fraud".
