Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[robert_papalid_ece]

---

maybe ari nlng na e post ani nga thread bay. kay para daghan pud ma aware buh.. .


daghan2x na bya pud ang nag post ngari ug ilang mga opinions. . hihih..

better read ol the post and replies. .

c wat u cud say to them. .

to Robert. .

new topic ra gud bai gud... lisod kaayo i-usa... stick to the topic lang gud ta.. kay lisod kaayo itubag sa mga non-related sa topic ba... with all my posts... try jud baya nako ug stick sa topic...

salig lang ka ikaw ang TS... gilubong na lang gud tong akong usa ka gihimo nga topic "Your Favorite Manny Pacquiao Line"... pampost sad tawn mo didto oi... wakekekek!

[geremarv]

libog mo asa to.ohan? naa ko pangutana mga bro about sa ni too sa sciences...kana ila ingon na gikan sa ungoy ang tao asa man sad naggikan ang ongoy....kana ila g.ingon na nahimo ang tao tungod ana nga mga butanga kinsa man nag himo ana mga butanga? dba mapadolong na sa bible ma dugay......bro sa nag.ingon na nag.contradict ang bible sa pagkatinood wla na cla nag.contradict if sabton gyud na nimo....kana gi.ingon sa john ia ho am i...basabot ang dios mao cya....will site and example bro..para dli ka maglibog ato e.set example ang ice....unsa man ang ice bro dba tubig? ato ibutang c Jesus mao ang ice ang amahan mao ang tubig..inig kalanai dba mahimo gihapon na cya ice...ice reprecent para makatagbaw sa ato ka.uhaw mao pud ang anak para muluwas nato......

[hitch22]

what we are discussing here... is the concept of man having evolved from ape-like creatures... as ive said... evolution might be true to other creatures... but not with humans... apes and humans might have "similiraties"... pero diha ra jud kutob... i have even read one article that "yeasts" and humans have genetic similarities as well... hahayz...

robert, I have to congratulate you for making that small step. It looks like you are making some progress toward accepting evolution. When you say "evolution might be true to other creatures but not with humans," well that's a start...at least some accommodation is underway.

bitaw bai, I think enough arguments have been presented on the Evolution-is-true side of the fence. At this point, presenting more arguments and evidence won't really do much in terms of persuasion. I think some people fear that embracing the concept of evolution might encroach upon their faith or that it threatens the foundation of their religious beliefs...or it just makes human beings "less special" or lack a soul. That's why we used to hold the earth-centered view of the universe for so long, a view widely held until well into the 19th century. We liked to believe that God fixed the earth at the center of the universe, because because we consider ourselves as God's center of attention. We've just celebrated the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" last year. Maybe in the next 200 years. Who knows?

and believers of human evolution still could not be able to provide their "evidence" of the missing link... instead... they are trying to insist on the genetic similarities... considering the fact that they have already discovered our assumed descendants of humans which existed millions of years earlier than the "missing link"... so it must be easier for them to look for that missing fossil than the australopithecus whatever... again... ill give them all the time they want to look for that missing link which never existed...

Well, the fact of human evolution does not depend on the discovery of the missing link fossil. I think most mainstream biologists would agree on that. Actually, fossil records serve more to prove the track record of Darwin's theory. Remember that one necessary requirement of a scientific theory is its falsifiability. Darwin's theory can be falsified if you can uncover the fossil of a creature that should not belong to a particular time period. If you, say, found the fossil of a rabbit that dates to the Precambrian period, you can disprove the Theory. As yet, not one single fossil has been found to do so. That's how accurate the Theory is...every single fossil that's uncovered just fills in the right place and the right time frame on the evolutionary tree.

We may never discover that missing link, although from time to time---including the latest one "Ilda" (Darwinius masillae)---we get to unearth some astonishing discovery...reinforcing further Darwin's Theory. There's still some dispute though as to whether "Ilda" is indeed THE MISSING LINK. The problem with finding fossils is that fossilization is a matter of luck and happenstance. Most living things are quickly recycled upon death. Scavengers and bacteria usually consume all but bones and shells. And bones and shells are subject to decay and environmental forces. In rare instances, if the remains happen to be frozen in ice, or mummified through dessication, or trapped in tar pits or amber or sediments, or if they (vertebrates) leave impressions on rock surfaces through carbonization or permineralization---that's the only way we get to see "souvenirs" from prehistory. But, no...we're not holding our breath for the missing link.

[hitch22]

I think I've said enough about science and origins. I'll just post some parting words.

I just want to highlight the fact that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is part of mainstream biology. In fact, it's the unifying principle that binds the sub-branches of biology, from agriculture to genetics. I remember back in high school (I think it's still being taught now) how we learn Carolus Linnaeus' hierarchical system of classifying plants and animals: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species (better remembered through the mnemonics King Philip Came Over For Good Soup). However, in 1990, American microbiologist Carl Woese introduced the three-domain system, which actually builds on top of Linnaeus' system. This change was done just so that classification reflects the Darwinian principle of common descent. Majority of biologists have accepted the domain system, although a minority still cling on to the five-kingdom method for various reasons.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is true and it's mainstream...not some controversial pseudoscience existing on the outskirts of mainstream science. On the other hand, creationism is pseudo-science. Mainstream scientists have long ago adopted Darwin's Theory and have won the debates against creationism and its recent incarnation, Intelligent Design. In other words, the Theory has already been upheld as true...as true as atoms, gravity and pathogenic bacteria. I think it's high time we should get on with it.

My objective for posting in this thread is to present the arguments and evidence for evolution and present counter-arguments against its objections...not necessarily to convince as much people as I can...although that would be a pleasant thing to see (i.e. religious persons convinced of Darwin's theory...I've already named two prominent Roman Catholics who believed in evolution: Fr. George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, and Ken Miller, Catholic expert witness for the plaintiffs (the pro-Evolution camp) in the Dover trial).

I thank everyone for taking the time to read my lengthy posts, and I'm delighted with the participation...at least it shows interest in the subject.

Cheers!

[FAQ]

@robert_papalid_ece

It's a common misconceptions by religious people, but humans are not descended from chimps or apes. Apes don't have the ability to create tools and idea for the future.

BTW, congratulations for creating a robot by yourself. Second, what is the relation between evolution and robots? You are using faulty logic here.

the Bible is a bronze-age book? it is a harsh insult for us Bible believers... it is this bronze-age book that even during the time when humans believed that the earth was flat... the Bible is already telling humans that our planet has a round shape (Isaiah 40:22)... you might argue that technically... "circle" meant a two-dimensional figure... but the Bible already gave early humans the idea of our planet's shape even before this was proven a scientific fact...

False. It is quite clear that the Bible suggest and claim that the Earth is flat, has Edges, has Four Corners, has Pillars, and has Foundations. And saying the Bible is a bronze-age book, how's that became an insult?

Earth is flat and has foundations:

Psalm 104:5
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Earth has edges:

Job 28:24
for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens

Job 38:13
that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?

Earth has four corners:

Revelations 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Earth has pillars:

Job 9:6
He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble.

Job 38:4
Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.

Robert, does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round? Let's take a look.

Isaiah 40:22
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

A circle is not a ball or sphere or an egg-shaped object. A circle is a flat round surface, similar to flat rectangular, or square, or triangular surfaces. So if the Bible claims that the Earth is a circle, then this is still bogus because the earth is obviously not a flat surface.

There are two conditions Isiah 40:22 could be claiming: either the Earth is a flat circle or has a circle above it.

If the Earth is a flat circle, then we are left with a clear and irrefutable contradiction between Isaiah 40:22 and some of the Bible's verses that I mentioned, because a flat circle doesn't have four corners. If the Earth has a circle above it, then it doesn't prove that the Earth is an egg-shaped figure, and Isaiah 40:22 surely becomes irrelevant to this subject.

Yeah, evolution doesn't amaze you because of your religion restricts you to know the truth. The most powerful sense we have for knowing the world is our mind and our ability to separate truth from fiction. The reason of your denial of the facts of science is because you are fearful that everything you have ever believed is a myth.

I have much more faith in Science than I do in religion. Science respect my intellectual integrity. They do not threaten me with hell if I don't believe them. They do not require me to stay ignorant of outside information that goes against their finds. They do not ask me to chant every Sunday morning and repeat there doctrine and force to believe all kinds of stuffs.

[robert_papalid_ece]

yep hitch22... i believe in evolution... but not human evolution... yep... as a believer of God... evolution degrades the status of humans being God's most wonderful creation... humans are way, way, way different from other animals (apes, horses, dogs, insects, etc)... aside from intelligence... we have spirits... and i even disagree of categorizing humans under Kingdom Animalia or even as primates... (oooops.... another topic... ) if we die.. just like other animals... we'll just die and turn to dust? if you believe in human evolution... you should ignore the concept of spirits too... right? since we are just animals...

with regards to Ida (thanks for the info btw... this is the first time ive heard of this)... the alleged missing link... i just read a few articles... Ida is just a link (still an assumption) between lemurs and primates... well this would make our discussion much more complex... arguing that humans evolved from lemurs... waaaaaaah!

i have an idea... maybe i will just try to post one last message in this thread citing all my beliefs and counter-arguments... on why i believe the Bible instead evolution... maybe next week... para maka-ikyas na ko sa debate diri... coz i have spent hours na jud... office hours... just for this thread alone... hehehe... i hope everybody is fine with this... maka-adik jud ning istorya.net oi...

kay mura'g para nako man gud mga bros... i still can't accept it... although when i was still younger... in college... i believed in evolution too... in the Lochness monster, aliens, etc... kato ganing dali ra kaayo ko ma-amaze sa akong mga nabasa, nakita sa discovery, etc... and i almost ignored the existence of God... one of the mistakes that i did...

happy 150th anniversary bru! we have our own beliefs anyway... and freewill and complex decision making are two of the many things that make us humans...

[FAQ]

People who believe in fairytales are trying to remain in the Dark Ages.

[robert_papalid_ece]

@FAQ:
edges, corners, pillars, foundations, ends are figures of speech... read further with the verses that you provided... and youll see more methapors, personifications, etc... even my high-school cousin knows that... and we will always go back to the original argument that the Bible should not be taken literally...

like my reply to kenites... read not only one verse... that you just googled... but the verses before and after it... and youll see...

my logic on the robot thingy... was... you were asking? if u just read everything on my post... all designs wont exist if there is nobody who created it...

and with regards to the 'circle' argument... i've already mentioned that... again if you just read completely my post... it says:

you might argue that technically... "circle" meant a two-dimensional figure... but the Bible already gave early humans the idea of our planet's shape even before this was proven a scientific fact...

the Bible isn't a fairytale bro... there are no fairies on it... Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty are...

thanks...

[necrotic freak]

People who believe in fairytales are trying to remain in the Dark Ages.

Fairytales nowsday can be seen in 3D's and computer aided animation, i don't think it still ramain in the dark ages.

People who believe in human evolution still haven't seen the light of day coz the missing link is still in the dark.

[FAQ]

That's the common excuse for people like you saying "not to take the Bible literally" because that's what the church tells to all their flocks. If the Bible shouldn't be taking it literally, then why did Galileo was charged with heresy and was cruelly imprisoned and forced to recant under the pains of torture when he discovered that the Earth revolves around the Sun? If you say that the Bible didn't say that the Sun revolves around earth, then why he was excommunicated?

Robots are different things. They're made by humans. If you are talking who designed us, it has to do with chemical reactions courtesy of Big Bang.

Fairytales don't have to be involved with "fairies" as long it involves with fantasy, magic and unbelievable sequence of events. Stories in the Bible are bunch of fairytales and that's an undisputable fact. Ok, how could someone lived for 600 years?