EVOLUTION - Page 11

Some of the latest theories are starting to hypothesize that archetypes of the existing variations we observe today spontaneously erupted at some point. Interesting how that seems to line up with the biblical account, though you won't find the modern scientific verbiage used in modern literature in scripture.

To even sugest that evolution isn't real is ridiculace! A singal celled virus finds it very easy to evolve to become immune to vaccinations or treatments it just takes alot longer for the intricacy of a human or animal to evolve. Take dogs for example over years of selective breeding we have changed the apperance and smarts of many breeds. The evidence for evolution is everywhere like snakes have a pair of legs inside there body meaning they evolved from lizards. A giraffe has a blood vessel that goes from the brain all the way down it's neck then back up to it's voice box meaning the necks grew over time.
I personal beleive that every living thing on this planet grew from 1 cell meaning we all are one soul. Experiencing ourselfs from multiple points of veiw. we are our own creation...We are "God".

Adaptive traits only suggest all life evolved from a single cell if it is your desire to assume so. No facts or logical reasoning suggest it. Those who claim that snakes are just legless descendants of other reptiles really don't understand their uniqueness. Snakes have a specially designed backbone, which is very different from other reptiles. For a lizard to turn into a snake over time, it would need special backbones. Snakes could not slither without these additions. Many evolutionist believe snake came from the sea which counters the typical "crawl from the sea " scenarios where creatures evolve legs and come out of the water. The loss of appendages is contrary to the 'one celled well of life' you've placed your faith in because it runs opposite of what would lead to the emergence of man. How does this first living cell emerge? To assume we are God is pretty brazen and exactly what God hates in us.

Ps, All dogs are still canines, again assumption is needed to presume it suggest we all came from one single cell millions of years ago. Man manipulating and practicing genetic engineering doesn't suggest mindless evolution, it suggest an intelligent being(s) designing things, logically anyway.

quote:

---

Adaptive traits only suggest all life evolved from a single cell if it is your desire to assume so.

---

manbible, your arguement destroys your own desired assumption.

quote:

---

Those who claim that snakes are just legless descendants of other reptiles really don't understand their uniqueness. Snakes have a specially designed backbone, which is very different from other reptiles. For a lizard to turn into a snake over time, it would need special backbones.

---

The backbone can be evolved, this can go in all directions.

quote:

---

To assume we are God is pretty brazen and exactly what God hates in us.

---

If god hates his own creations, he hates himself and anything made in his likeness. Is your god so fucked up he creates fallible objects so as to hate and punish them for the very things he has forcibly created in them?

To assume we are god is to realize the likelihood that all things are god, are part of the whole that is god. Logically anyway.

If it is so brazen and contemptable to assume we are god, what is it to assume we are not?

Do you not see how your limitations and judgements only reflect what you have chosen to assume you are?

Even though you label others these things instead?

To love oneself is to love others eh?

But you appear to refer to a love hindered by conditions and limits, a so called love that allows hate, that is not love.

That is fear of yourself, of others, and of god.

That is fear of love.

everything has an origin which was created by a perfect being ~ God
( human-ape-cell-- down to molecular level but still someone has to create that molecule before being built into a complex living thing)
Evolution is an ability given to us innately to adapt and to survive.
One will not evolve if not needed, only through harsh times are these genes activated to promote evolution and survival of race.

Logical sense:
God created the elements which soon became life and now life survives through evolution.

i made a paper on this when i was grade 5 javascript:insert_text(''

And what created god of course?

But I don't get why everyone would always assume god is a perfect anything.

It appears far more likely that god is trying to learn something as well, trying to grow, evolve. I realize this is a limited human perspective, but so is every other notion ever put forth.

retsamed,

The problem with mixing evolution and God is It reduces God to only what we can imagine. For instance, you alluded to the perfect nature of God. Evolution contradicts scripture; so is it your contention that this perfect God couldn't preserve his principles, creativity and laws by inspiring his prized creation to record them? God is bigger then our imaginative minds.

Manbible,

Scripture reduces god to only what we can imagine. And it far more likely that scripture contradicts god. And if scripture had been written during the time of the commonplace notion of evolutionary theory, it may have been included.

We know humans can't play a game of telephone without screwing up what was told to them often by the first retelling, let alone an entire book. And we know full well the bible was written by man, intentionally manipulated by man (Council of Nicea etc.)

So to claim scripture is accurate or an accurate portrayel of god or reality is absolute folly. Yes there is a lot of truth in it, but it is tainted and should be treated as such.

Your assumption that god is beyond human comprehension is likely true, and I tend to agree with it. But that doesn't mean it is in fact true.

Because we do not know the extent of god we cannot assume it is something we cannot imagine. That is faulty logic.

You contradict yourself when you try to define perameters around something you say you cannot imagine.

Ironwood,

You declaring an assertion doesn't make what you assert factual or true. My statement was made in response to what was inferred by Theory; in that he assumed flu viruses ability to adapt to vaccines meant that all life could have evolved from one original cell and it stands. He (you too?) thinks that proves it could have evolved that way but I say it is nothing more than a desirous assumption.

Right, this can go many directions but your whole approach is reinforcing my point. "Can", "could" and similar verbiage are terms that express belief and faith, not science. Though for some reason when it comes to evolution they seem to be more willing to accept these expressions as "scientific conclusions" in some circles. Evolution is nothing more then people trying to use science to support their belief system...trying to force all the pieces into a puzzle that's beyond their comprehension.

I didn't say God hates his creation. But since you mentioned that fallacy I'll say this: God hates the fact we used our wills to suppress him in our minds and rebel against him.

You seemed to focus on my limitations, that is a judgement on your part. The great thinkers of the past; Plato, Aristotle ect. believed that since an idea can exist and it isn't tangible to anyone other then the person who has it, it meant that there was more to life the meets the eye. Things can exist that are out of our range of detection and nothing we learn today can discount that fact. I believe it is your limitations causing narrow minded thinking, not my limitations. An everlasting God who has no beginning or end is incomprehensible, so you don't dare approach it with an open mind.

quote:

---

You declaring an assertion doesn't make what you assert factual or true. My statement was made in response to what was inferred by Theory

---

What assertion did I make?

I did speak of the possibility that your assertion was denying. A faith based assertion based upon scripture.

quote:

---

Right, this can go many directions but your whole approach is reinforcing my point. "Can", "could" and similar verbiage are terms that express belief and faith, not science.

---

That isn't a point I've seen you make, or that I challenged. Can and could are obviously not assertions, they are allowed possibilities. Do you understand the difference? Do you realize you are creating warped arguements off of inaccurate contexts?

quote:

---

Evolution is nothing more then people trying to use science to support their belief system...

---

No, evolution is but a scientific theory, not a law.

But yes, many people do treat it that way, and you are obviously referring to those who do, and not me.

quote:

---

I didn't say God hates his creation. But since you mentioned that fallacy I'll say this: God hates the fact we used our wills to suppress him in our minds and rebel against him.

---

I appreciate the attempted clarification.

So let me clarify as well. All children rebel against their parents when they know no better. That is not justification for hatred even of their actions. Especially by a parent figure who does no parenting.

No man can be expected to "know" god or to be seen as suppressing him in our mind because of this lacking knowledge or by challenging other people's asserted definition of god and his intentions.

But all of this is common sense except to someone who is holding faith in something that tells them otherwise, like scripture.

Which was the crux of my point with you all along and fittingly what you avoided entirely.

You are the one, along with others, but specifically between you and I, using a faith in something to reinforce a chosen belief.

You are the one asserting that evolution contradicts some "fact" as you present scripture to be.

You are the one asserting a definition of god or his perameters by saying such things as...

quote:

---

An everlasting God who has no beginning or end

---

Which is a close minded statement if made as an assertion.

I allow for that possibility, but I also allow for the possibility that that is not the case, do you?

I am not so brazen as to claim knowledge of what an incomprehensible god is or its intentions, especially not by repeating words of indoctrination from other men, especially words further known as a fact to be intentionally manipulated and edited further by men.

Do you understand the difference yet?

That is the limitation I refer to, are you saying I am incorrect?

Do you not make the asserted claim that scripture is a fact and further an arguement against the THEORY of evolution?

Ironwood,

You said "manbible, your arguement destroys your own desired assumption."
That assertion is false. It was that assertion I referenced.

Commonsense is about ones perspective. I describe the infinite nature of God. True, I can not do that perfectly as I lack the proper words to do so. That said, I'm not limiting God to my description. You hold to a false perception there.

Yes, I believe the scriptures and if you were truly open to the possibility of an infinite God
as you said, you could not have posted the diatribe that you posted. It is your argument that
is self defeating.

Indeed, you have limited the idea of God to your finite understanding. If you truly believe it's possible for God to be infinite in nature in all aspects as you said "I allow for that possibility" then why do you not think he can preserve his word? Or hasn't? What makes you think he hasn't given knowledge to some? Because he hasn't imparted any to you? You are brazen enough to think God must run his operation by you in order for you to accept it. The scriptures are true. I know this because Gods spirit revealed them to me. You can't fathom that because you haven't experienced his spirit. The sad truth is as long as you are not open to that possibility, you never will experience the blessings of God.

quote:

---

You said "manbible, your arguement destroys your own desired assumption."
That assertion is false. It was that assertion I referenced.

---

Ok, so you are supposed to validate your position when you claim a viable counter statement.

You say my assertion that your own arguement defeats your other arguement is false.

But the point I made was that, as you stated and made arguement against, that a faith based arguement was used to bolster a chosen belief is indeed inappropriate, but you did so as well.

You have faith in the scriptures, just as others hold faith in evolution theory, and both have been used to propogate your beliefs.

Your only possible attempt at defying the legitimacy of my point is again further claiming validity of your faith in scripture.

Well, what if God told someone evolution was correct? Divine inspiration isn't a cornered market by religious zealots.

In fact, much scientific breakthrough is attributed to both dreams and other divine or alien interactions.

So your arguement is that god told you so, well, god told me different. What does that mean?

You assume you know my beliefs or spiritual leanings and experiences. For shame.

quote:

---

if you were truly open to the possibility of an infinite God
as you said, you could not have posted the diatribe that you posted

---

I am quite truly open to the possibility of an infinite god, and I truly post and stand behind my words regardless of your judgement.

quote:

---

It is your argument that is self defeating.

---

And you have still not shown how my arguement is actually self defeating, it is but a claim you have made.

quote:

---

then why do you not think he can preserve his word? Or hasn't? What makes you think he hasn't given knowledge to some?

---

I have covered this. If indeed you are referring to scripture you have had access to in your life than you are referencing scripture that has been intentionally manipulated by man and therefore obviously not the original word of god if that were even accurate to begin with.

You bely the complexity of translating god's word through man's inferior and inefficient language, let alone fallibility, another fault of god's great scheme, or intended challenge.

You again sidestep the answer to your own questions by avoiding my initial points and questions about the validity of scripture, all due to your chosen belief in the words of others, even god's as you claim.

If god wanted his word known without any doubt, it could be done instantly to all. Do you disagree?

Ah, but even if you agree or disagree, why would he need to impart knowledge selectively to you or anyone else?

What childish game would he be playing to do such a thing?

quote:

---

You are brazen enough to think God must run his operation by you in order for you to accept it.

---

No, you are. You are brazen enough to claim the voices in your head are god's and that he is running it by you.

I would be brazen enough to demand god do so if indeed he were playing some game in which he decided to hide the rules behind the twisted words and acts of man.

You seem to think there is no valid reason to be concerned with or skeptical of the words of man. Yet you so readily admonish anything I say when it questions your position.

What you don't understand is that I am even open to your experiences. Regardless of my words and their generally perceivable position.

But even your experience if perceived by such insolent, arrogant, bias without respect to common sense must be challenged.

You do not appear to contemplate or try to incorporate paradox as I do. And for now I won't attempt to allude to the subject.

But I will end for now by saying you have no idea what I have experienced, and apparently have no idea what I am open to. But what I do know is that even if god spoke directly to you, OUR limited and biased natures would not likely be able to fully comprehend its ultimate meaning.

I have already said there is much truth in scripture, but there is much documented manipulation as well. Your fear of addressing this basic factual reality undermines all you claim.

This is my issue with you. This is your limitation. The devil is in the details. And as an apparent bible man of some sort, this should concern you and your assertions, including scrutiny of those who give or validate them to you.

So tell me, did your god tell you to believe the king james version or another? Do you even understand the relevance of the question?

I guess also it should be asked if you consider yourself a prophet? Would you accept the Vatican's disagreement?

What would you have said if god's spirit told you all scritpure was wrong? What would you have done if you didn't know what scriptures he was talking about? Or do you even? Perhaps satanic scripture? Or pagan?

What about the disagreements between jewish, christian, and muslim? Did he clarify?

I know I'm tired of wars over this squabble, why haven't you fixed that? Eh, prophet?

Manbible- god hasn't given word or a message to anybody or sent a angel to inform anybody either. God isn't a consious mind with logical thought god is reality and exists only through somebody or something to whitness reality.

It seems you are so close to grasping the truth but are blinded by others words and descriptions of god.