We have been told since elementary that the world was created based on the "Big Bang Theory," evolution is the cause of human beings and all theories should be based on fact. This question will not put down the basic idea of these two theories, that is for the answers, but the question posed: If these are theories, why have they not been repeated?
7 comments:
If we are to believe that the earth was created through some major explosion and from that explosion, a perfectly spherical planet was created, slanted just right to create a polar balance that the atmosphere could be created, and life begin in the form of plants and clouds accumulate creating a hydrogen-dioxide mix that allowed these plants to have sustaining nutrients, a Sun that was distanced just far away that the plant inhabitants would not be scorched, then, creatures other than plants start forming from micro-organisms that developed traits only unique to that creature, with an ability to procreate the same creature time and time again, with similar attributes, and to top it all off, the creation of a creature far more advanced in brain activity than any other creature that has ever walked on this newly created planet in comparison with others, with the ability to think rationally and not in accordance with nature; build, establish thought and pass thought through a series of written characters for generations far beyond their comprehension to learn of their present way of life and lead us to the present day - if this is what theories lie in science today - I ask, why do you not see it repeated?
Then, you have a Heavenly being, far more advanced than the simple human mind, creating with purpose, direction, governing the way it was done and then finishing it off with the creation of man and womankind. Created after his likeness to come and learn, develop, understand and see how this whole creation was done that man and woman might be able to return back to him. That is the calming feeling of the creation - that it was done on purpose and not by accident. It was calculated by a perfect being to give trials and tribulations, show majesty and grandeur and most of all, give a place where the spirit may have a body and become like Heavenly Father. God lives, and he is the architect of the world we live. We are the ones commanded to subdue it, have dominion over it and we are the ones who will be judged accordingly for our actions and deeds while we have been placed here. The scriptures show us and the world is the testimony of what we have been shown in the scriptures. The sun, moon and stars; the mountains and oceans, lakes and rivers; the creatures from the fowl of the air to the fish of the sea, the beast and creepy and crawly things have all been given for the benefit of man and woman. But most importantly, we are given an understanding of who are divine lineage is: "And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. ... And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and, behold, all things which I had made were very good ..." (Moses 2: 27,31)
How utterly sad you are. You have many of the milestones of evolution correct but zero understanding of the actual physical processes and timelines it took to occur. Humanity has had this religious propaganda BS pushed in our heads and down our throats since birth for the last 2000 years rendering most unable to think for themselves and blind to truth and reality. When anyone did have the courage question what truth is well the church just burned them at the stake or hung them like any good hypocrites would. It all about controlling the masses and passing that collection plate. Wake up people! Think for yourself and never stop questioning.
I was taught evolution in school and was a strict evolutionist until recently. I am still researching the issue from both the creation and evolution sides. It seems most the evidence lies on the side of creation, but what I find interesting is the use of profanity and personal insults coming from the side of the evolutionists. Why is it that anyone who thinks creation may have some validity must be brainwashed and needs to wake up and think for themselves. I'm wide awake and I always think from myself and examine each issue very carefully, because theological issues are of the utmost importance. I don't believe in creation because a preacher told me its so, just as I don't believe evolution is true because a scientist tells me it's true. I believe what I believe after examining evidence and listening to all possible arguments.
Simply put, I do believe in creation. However, I see little to be gained by throwing another voice into the fray. I am never-the-less seriously interested in understanding the Evolutionist explanation of adaptation. In particular what exactly is perceived as the "trigger" for change. From a purely logical perspective I'm having great difficulty appreciating the evolutionary argument. How does the process of adaptation work? To my limited scientific mind I am stymied by the problem of causation. To put it bluntly how does a bird with a large beak change it's genetic make up to aquire a pointier beak so as to better feed itself in a given environment. I can see natural selection being a strong argument for winnowing out species not well suited to a particular environment. I don't see that as much of an argument for adaptation and genetic change though. Please, spare me any comments on mutation as I have already done sufficient research to know that they are more likely leathal than beneficial. This is a legitimate and non-antagonistic question. I await a reply. Thank You
Lakemba,
The process of adaptation is process by which a species changes to fit in with the environment. It is a mixture of beneficial mutations and natural selection. When discussing evolution, one cannot think in terms of an individual but groups. Obviously, we can't change our genetic makeup to fit our surroundings, but over time (typically LONG periods of time), those with the best genetic makeup for their region will be the most hardy, and eventually, they will be the majority group. As the surroundings change, certain groups naturally have advantages over others. Additionally, the genetic mutations that advance the hardiness of the species naturally improve that group's likelihood of survival.
Naturally, the question that many ignore is: can evolution have a place in a creationist paradigm?
What bugs me the most about learning evolution is my teachers always expect us to not question the theory, that it should be treated as fact. The truth is evolution is a theory with many flaws. I find many aspects of evolution to not make any reasonable sense. I believe that truth is reasonable. I do believe that species evolve over time. But no one has been able to show me how a strand of DNA in a primordial soup was suddenly able to figure out how to reproduce, and that all of these organisms were able to become more advanced and reproduce. The first strand of DNA had to come from somewhere anyways. It does not make sense that these miraculous advancements were occuring. Using evolution to explain the origin of life is B.S.
Evolution is easily proved to be untrue. It was a foolish theory Darwin came up with (for which even he had his doubts)and based it upon another theory: Einstein's theory of relativity. Scientists took the famous equation E=MC2 (understood to be squared, not multiplied by two) and reversed it to try and say that literal nothingness could randomly create an explosion and from that explosion, matter, germs, life, etc. Evolution is so easily disproved. We fully comprehend the aspects of the theory, but also realize that it does not make sense, nor does it even fit together in and of itself. Evolution was and still is today, a theory based upon of theories, that were based upon theories. But how can something that has not fully been proven true, prove something else to be true, which then proves something else to be true, and so on and so forth. That would be like taking a word and getting a synonym for it; then for that word you get a synonym as well. The process continues until the minor differences between the word and its synonym are stretched to the point where the last word means nothing even close to the original. Christianity is not propaganda. It is not false. Scientists recognize the existence of Jesus Christ, but simply say that he did not perform the "alleged" miracles as said in the Bible. With his known existence alone, we can prove seven of the thousands of prophecies to be true; and the statistic possibility of just those seven would be 10 to the 38th power(written out to be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001%) which is far beyond, not just statistic improbability, but statistic impossibility. And that's such a minor fraction of the total amount of proof. All you have to do is search "disproving evolution" or something along those lines and the proof against the theory will overwhelm you. I have looked from a neutral viewpoint and easily seen that evolution has little to no credible proof. On the other hand, "Creationism", as it is commonly called, has insurmountable proof. All you must do to see what I see, is to take a neutral viewpoint and compare the proof and the proof's credibility.
P.S.- It is true that the Roman-Catholic Church had many flaws and did many wrong things; but even so, we have changed and now realize what is right and what is wrong. To nearly everything there will be corruption and that is not something that we can stop. Not only that, but the Roman-Catholic Church actually agreed with many ideas of evolution because of Augustine's foolish though that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally in Genesis and that is was "poetic" and had to be interpreted. That is where it went wrong (or more wrong, I should say)and the Church tried to interpret the Bible, but not knowing how to do so properly, they failed miserably, but took it to be a great success. So that doesn't mean that the Church was being ignorant to evolutionist's ideas(but not quite the theory of evolution, for it had not fully been developed back then), when they believed many of them in the first place. You obviously don't understand why the Church burned people at the stake. It was not because of something like that, but because of completely different things. For instance, there was a monk who tried to configure why five specific people died when a wooden bridge fell, and ended up saying that it was "open to human error", thus causing his execution at the fiery stake.
It is today's scientist's who are ignorant and decide not to look at the proof against evolution and for Christianity.
May God bless you all in all that you do!
Post a Comment