Gods view on evolution ?

[brownprose]

---

The idea of a God-driven evolution has been supported by many churches already. Here's an excerpt:

During the celebration of 'Evolution Sunday' churches said that Darwin`s theory of biological evolution was compatible with faith and that Christians had no need to choose between religion and science.

Many churches held adult education and Sunday school classes on evolution, and ministers preached that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, participated in the event.

It followed an initiative by Warren Eschbach, a retired Church of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000 other clergy.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," the clergy wrote.

The letter urged school boards across the country to "preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."

Source: Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design - news from ekklesia | Ekklesia

[brownprose]

^^ The idea of course ridiculed by Richard Dawkins as an attempt to "smuggle God in by the back door".

I am a big fan of Dawkins only this part lang gyud nga di ko moagree niya

[regnauld]

The idea of a God-driven evolution has been supported by many churches already. Here's an excerpt:

During the celebration of 'Evolution Sunday' churches said that Darwin`s theory of biological evolution was compatible with faith and that Christians had no need to choose between religion and science.

Many churches held adult education and Sunday school classes on evolution, and ministers preached that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, participated in the event.

It followed an initiative by Warren Eschbach, a retired Church of the Brethren pastor and professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, who helped sponsor a letter signed by more than 10,000 other clergy.

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests," the clergy wrote.

The letter urged school boards across the country to "preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."

Source: Churches urged to challenge Intelligent Design - news from ekklesia | Ekklesia

EXCELLENT!

[kebotDiNaMute]

omg, what we have here are two witnesses, Evolution and Creation. Lets talk about evolution first,

Evolution Anomalies:

The Problem of Sexes
Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one *** of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, "...we can't even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one ***."

Expert
One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Peace Prizewinner in science, wrote:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."


Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, said,
"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box
the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex.
But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.
--- totyo si darwin diri.

Chance
Related to this is the problem of chance. Chance is no thing—that is, nothing. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing creates Everything is ridiculus.

Still insisting its science? well its a candidate for PSEUDO-SCI... ahahaha.

[brownprose]

Naa man lagi diha si Richard Dawkins kebs nga atheist man na siya Sure ka nakasabot ka sa imong gipangpost kebs?

omg, what we have here are two witnesses, Evolution and Creation. Lets talk about evolution first,

Evolution Anomalies:

The Problem of Sexes
Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one *** of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, "...we can't even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one ***."

Expert
One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Peace Prizewinner in science, wrote:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."


Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, said,
"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box
the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex.
But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.
--- totyo si darwin diri.

Chance
Related to this is the problem of chance. Chance is no thing—that is, nothing. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing creates Everything is ridiculus.

Still insisting its science? well its a candidate for PSEUDO-SCI... ahahaha.

[brownprose]

From the National Academy of Sciences

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. Source: Evolution Resources from the National Academies

[HALIKniHUDAS]

omg, what we have here are two witnesses, Evolution and Creation. Lets talk about evolution first,

Evolution Anomalies:

The Problem of Sexes
Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one *** of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, "...we can't even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one ***."

Expert
One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Peace Prizewinner in science, wrote:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."


Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, said,
"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box
the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex.
But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.
--- totyo si darwin diri.

Chance
Related to this is the problem of chance. Chance is no thing—that is, nothing. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing creates Everything is ridiculus.

Still insisting its science? well its a candidate for PSEUDO-SCI... ahahaha.

nagkapoliki man ni nga mga rason. asa ni gikan? sa mga creationists? e compare nato sa obos nga gikan sa National Academy of Sciences.

From the National Academy of Sciences

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. Source: Evolution Resources from the National Academies

ang source pa lang daan hagbong na ka kebot.

[jamesmusslewhite]

Now adays we can see millions of fossils that proves darwins theory.

Truth fossils only prove things exist and then disappear completely, because there is never the missing links between the transitions. A lot of conjecture but no real proof just 80 years of Atheist and misguided scientist trying to prove the word of God as a lie. There has been many cases where scientist have faked their findings or distort the facts so they are not proven wrong, most of which is never mentioned. Nasty double standard.

but what is the religions point of view on this.?

Science does not prove the word of God as a lie, when the science is used objectively. If science measures and test what God created is exist and therefor can be tested. Science can only guess of things 12,000 years or before. There is no records, writings, or understanding of the peoples or events of early man or early Earth.

Research also shows the difinite discription of the universe.

Yes as far as a telescope can see. And as beings standing on a grain of sand floating in a sea of nothingness thinking they have the grasp of the whole ocean around it. That is just a little Scientific Narcissism. We do like to think we are smarter than a God.

is the creation story in genesis just a representation.?

If Genesis is true then ancient mud from 10 miles deep in the Earth would have covered mass areas as water gushed 20 miles towards the 2 atmospheres, collapsing the 2nd atmosphere providing half the world's water. Well it would explain the fossil records, but then science would have to admit that carbon dating is plagued with inaccurate dating. That also slap science in the face as to the actual date of the polar caps, and would mean man and dinosaurs coexisted. That would suggest that maybe man is not quite as clever as he thinks. We do like to think we are smarter than a God. The Bible said all that happen.

Truth Science is too narcissistic to really find the truth, only the truths that they are comfortable with, and will do anything or say anything as to be proven wrong. We do like to think we are smarter than a God.

But Science has had a long history of having to correct the bad science before it. One theory replaces the bad theory before it. I say give it time and evolution will be forced to correct itself. 86 years the atheist have been trying to destroy the Bible, but the harder they try to discredit it, the more they prove that they can not. Good science will prevail in the end, especially now that science is starting to use the Bible in their research. Almost ever known modern theory is in a big poem written 4,500-1,900 years ago. It is crammed full of science that was supposedly unknown to the peoples of their day, yet it fills the pages of the text. So who told them? Who knew this information? Science says it was not them.
So if science is wrong about them back then, why do you trust they are so right now?

[HALIKniHUDAS]

Truth Science is too narcissistic to really find the truth, only the truths that they are comfortable with, and will do anything or say anything as to be proven wrong. We do like to think we are smarter than a God.

But Science has had a long history of having to correct the bad science before it. One theory replaces the bad theory before it. I say give it time and evolution will be forced to correct itself. 86 years the atheist have been trying to destroy the Bible, but the harder they try to discredit it, the more they prove that they can not. Good science will prevail in the end, especially now that science is starting to use the Bible in their research. Almost ever known modern theory is in a big poem written 4,500-1,900 years ago. It is crammed full of science that was supposedly unknown to the peoples of their day, yet it fills the pages of the text. So who told them? Who knew this information? Science says it was not them.
So if science is wrong about them back then, why do you trust they are so right now?

unsa may expectation nimo? ganahan ka e connect ang science og ang theory nga naay Ginoo? kong mao nay gosto nimo, by all means ipagawas ng imong gi ingon nga Ginoo. ayaw pogsa ang science nga e connect ang wala diha.

ana man na ang science james pero ang mga corrections was made to create a better theory.

[YLINGAO]

pagka totyo! y unod ang mga gipang copy paste

hala tood sakto si sir brownprose! nag unsa man na si dawkins diha? ahaka di daw siya motoo sa mga atheist pero fans siya ni dawkins hahahaha aguroy kita na gyud ang iyang pagka PLASTIIIIK ahehehehe

omg, what we have here are two witnesses, Evolution and Creation. Lets talk about evolution first,

Evolution Anomalies:

The Problem of Sexes
Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality. To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same ancestor. Even if one *** of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by Parker, "...we can't even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that human beings evolved from some animal that had only one ***."

Expert
One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: "Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol. 85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Peace Prizewinner in science, wrote:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."


Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, said,
"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."

Richard Dawkins in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box
the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that life was built on levels from simple to complex.
But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s, we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to evolution, is incorrect.
--- totyo si darwin diri.

Chance
Related to this is the problem of chance. Chance is no thing—that is, nothing. Nothing creates nothing. Nothing creates Everything is ridiculus.

Still insisting its science? well its a candidate for PSEUDO-SCI... ahahaha.