Why is it That Different Race, different God?

[treize]

Please refer to this one and please refute word by word if it is WRONG:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The statement is contradicting itself. If it is already a fact then why still call it a theory then? This is what happens when people try to force their idea in making it a fact, resulting in twisting the meaning of some words just for them to get there.

If a hypothesis is proven to be a fact then it's no longer called theory. There is no proof that one specie mutated from another, yes there is genetic mutation but no proof about evolution..

Click here.. SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 11 and see why species barrier cannot be broken.. I can assure you that's it's quite a good read, quite a long read though..

Just a quick view..

EVOLUTION WOULD WEAKEN AND NARROW—It is an astounding fact that evolutionary theory, if true, could only produce ever weaker creatures with continually narrowed adaptive traits. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors"! (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology, 1965, pp. 56, 57).

Well, that is a breath-taking discovery! If we had actually descended from monkeys, then we would have less genetic potential than they have! Our anatomy, physiology, brains, hormones, etc. would be less competent than that of a great ape.

In turn, the monkey is supposedly descended from something else, and would therefore have less genetic capacity than its supposed ancestor had. Somewhere back there, the first descendant came from protozoa. All that follows in the evolutionary ladder would have to have considerably less genetic potential than protozoa! That point alone eliminates biological evolution!

How can evolutionary theory survive such facts! It can only be done by hiding those facts. Evolution ranks as one of the most far-fetched ideas of our time; yet it has a lock-grip on all scientific thought and research. The theory twists data and warps conclusions in an effort to vindicate itself. Just imagine how much further along the path of research and discovery we would have been if, a hundred years ago, we had throttled evolutionary theory to death.

SELECTIVE BREEDING—Selective breeding occurs when people thoughtfully select out the best rose, ear of corn, or milk cow; and then, through careful breeding, they produce better roses, corn ears, or milk cows. But please notice several facts in connection with this:

(1) "Selection" requires intelligence, planning, and consistent effort by someone who is not the rose, corn, or cow. Random action is not "selection." Therefore "natural selection" is a misnomer. It should be called "random activity." The word "selection" implies intelligent decision-making. "Meaningless muddling" would better fit the parameters the evolutionists have in mind.

(2) Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, carefully planned activity; whereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences.

(3) Although random accidents could never produce new species,—neither can intelligent selective breeding! Selective breeding never, never produces new species. But if it cannot effect trans-species changes, we can have no hope that evolutionary chance operations could do it.

(4) Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produced a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism.


This one's from another article..

The fossil record has failed to prove that life evolved.
The Challenge of ComplexityA second problem challenging today's scientists involves the sheer complexity of the world around us. Common sense tells us that the more complex an event, the less likely it is to occur by chance. Consider an example.

There are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible.#

Complexity is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be useless without other complex parts. Let us focus on the example of reproduction.

According to evolutionary theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. At some stage, though, the female of a number of species had to develop reproductive cells requiring fertilization by a male with complementary reproductive cells. In order to supply the proper number of chromosomes to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left with half the usual number of chromosomes. This process prevents the offspring from having too many chromosomes.

Of course, the same process would have been needed for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing with a fully developed "first father"? How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosomes in their reproductive cells in the manner needed to produce a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents? And if these reproductive features developed gradually, how would the male and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependence coming about by chance are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another defies reasonable explanation. Can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? How could accidental, random, purposeless events result in such intricately interrelated systems? Living things are full of characteristics that show evidence of foresight and planning—pointing to an intelligent Planner.

Many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the "intelligent design" evident in "observable features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." Molecular biochemist Michael Behe sums up the evidence this way: "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it."


How could random forces produce something as complex as a single cell with its DNA, let alone a human?


A Spotty Fossil RecordA third mystery that has puzzled some scientists is related to the fossil record. If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."



You are looking for a scientific proof of the existence of God as if God is tangible and is bound by the natural laws of the universe. Science is great tool but it's methods are limited only to the natural laws of the physical world..

[treize]

Double Post... I've got nothing good to say at all.. (keeping away from the keyboard)

[whiteKelso]

Ngano kaha ni? nga Lain-lain man ang Dios depende sa Races?
- Unsa kaha ang Kamatuoran about ani?
- Kinsa man atong tuhuan ani?

there are different GOD's coz the are many GODS!

[saitohkiyohiru]

Kadaghan ba ani na klase sa thread...Pauso ni? Lage... convert na mi to atheism...

[pinoy_09]

The statement is contradicting itself. If it is already a fact then why still call it a theory then? This is what happens when people try to force their idea in making it a fact, resulting in twisting the meaning of some words just for them to get there.

If a hypothesis is proven to be a fact then it's no longer called theory. There is no proof that one specie mutated from another, yes there is genetic mutation but no proof about evolution..

Taken from the wiki link iheartnikon posted:

"Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena. When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations."

There's your answer.

[pinoy_09]

"When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with all living organisms."

Evolution as theory and fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pinoy_09]

What is a scientific fact?

Intelligent design and/or creationism is NOT a scientific fact.

[neurain]

kai lain lain man gud ta ug linguahe pero mao rana cya ra usa ang GOD

[tuffie09]

But if God doesn't exists at all then Who made you? who made Humans?

You are ignorant, sir.

[kajrot1]

@kajrot1

The reason nganong mga skeptics ug tinuod nga atheists ni trust ug science because of its credibility sa iya method to arrive a conclusion whereas ang religion is purely faith lang and appeal to the authority. Effective and dili bias ang science kay ang resulta verifiable, refutable, ug testable. NI believe sila sa credibility sa findings because dili blind faith ang gi basehan...at least naay humility labi na sa pag ingon if wa pay resulta sa experiment o study wa pay knowledge sila ana...and this applies to God.

Unsa pamay laing method nimo arom makaplagan ang kamatuuran nga susama ka credible ani aside sa greatest achievement sa humanity mao ang science?

Nya bro if doubtful mo sa science nanong lalisan paman lagi ni nato? Unsa pamay nabilin proof ninyo? Inyong kaugalingon analysis? Inyong logic? Mas may pa nuon pa mo sa mga experts og sa mga scientist. Maayo na