Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can
-
and as yet the evidence for evolution is not concrete... too many gaps and too many unexplained pheonmena.Originally posted by sgquitter:2. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons. -
ya loh. no one has found the missing link yet.
-
That is funnyOriginally posted by davidche:ya loh. no one has found the missing link yet.
No one has proven god yet
-
haha, so funny!!Originally posted by laurence82:That is funny
No one has proven god yet 
-
Its ok you cant prove Darwin become a Christian at his death bedOriginally posted by davidche:haha, so funny!!
I have seen Christians misquote Einstein and Darwin to heck
Its ok, you all doing for God right?
Wahahaha -
what sort of gaps are u talking about? unexplained pheonmena? please be more specific?Originally posted by breytonhartge:and as yet the evidence for evolution is not concrete... too many gaps and too many unexplained pheonmena.
Lets say we've found
A --evolves into--> B -> C -> ... -> Z -> modern Humans.
Will u start questioning "Hey, what about between A and B? between C and D??" this is neverending
Evolution results in species such that even the in-between stages are very indistinguishable. If u're really interested to find out, you'll read that some austrialian aboriginals are suggestive of being *very different* from modern humans.
Creationism and ID suggests distinguishable species but are unable to give charts that distinguish the animals. Creationist scientists oni tok cok sing song, when come down to real work you won't see them.
-
how bout the voicebox? explainations on that too??
Im actually quite interested in this topic you know. Do we get to study this in jc?? -
actually sgforums is a really good place to study the ID vs Evolution debate. I do not agree with SIS on some stuff, but his expertise in this area is actually very impressive. beats having to google and read up on every single argumentOriginally posted by davidche:how bout the voicebox? explainations on that too??
Im actually quite interested in this topic you know. Do we get to study this in jc?? -
One SIS does not equal whole of EHOriginally posted by ben1xy:actually sgforums is a really good place to study the ID vs Evolution debate. I do not agree with SIS on some stuff, but his expertise in this area is actually very impressive. beats having to google and read up on every single argument
I rather bring the debate to a more sane place -
yup! freeloader reporting for duty!!Originally posted by ben1xy:actually sgforums is a really good place to study the ID vs Evolution debate. I do not agree with SIS on some stuff, but his expertise in this area is actually very impressive. beats having to google and read up on every single argument -
Originally posted by sgquitter:
But u havent even reached the first stage of a--z, find the missing link.
what sort of gaps are u talking about? unexplained pheonmena? please be more specific?
Lets say we've found
A --evolves into--> B -> C -> ... -> Z -> modern Humans.
Will u start questioning "[b]Hey, what about between A and B? between C and D??" this is neverending
Evolution results in species such that even the in-between stages are very indistinguishable. If u're really interested to find out, you'll read that some austrialian aboriginals are suggestive of being *very different* from modern humans.
Creationism and ID suggests distinguishable species but are unable to give charts that distinguish the animals. Creationist scientists oni tok cok sing song, when come down to real work you won't see them. [/b]
So y bother about a-b link and b-c link?? -
it's ok lah. just read the things that make sense. the rest juz gloss overOriginally posted by laurence82:One SIS does not equal whole of EH
I rather bring the debate to a more sane place -
I never understood the big hoo-ha over the technical facts of the evolution debate, I always felt we ought to be more focused on the school of thoughts that tend to spring from such theories.
I for one do not think Christians need to resort to pseudo-science to refute evolution, or try to make every single scientific fact fit into the creation account. Such a thing might very well be impossible or at least end up with quite nonsenscial results because I doubt Genesis was supposed to be ever read like a piece of western scientific literature.
Also I suspect skeptics of the bible who expect the Genesis account to be scientifically congruent might be missing the whole point of things. Not that the Genesis account is not true, but it's probably more true then we can imagine it to be.
The real issue I suspect we need to think about is the implications of taking on the kind of view that evolution ought to be exculsively for people who are athiest, or that evolution must mean that there can be no God. That seems to me a statement made on many assumptions that nobody bothered to look at a second time round. -
You mean u've never heard about the term "prehistoric man"? we've already have so many different species of prehistoric man, many "branches" are extinct now. and now u say we havent even reached the "first stage" - not sure what kind of "first stage" u're talking about...Originally posted by davidche:But u havent even reached the first stage of a--z, find the missing link.
So y bother about a-b link and b-c link?? -
Missing links ? i thought the term cease to exist for many years since the finding of much more fossils ? If u say tat there r still missing links, please show us a website from a reputable scientific organisation tat stated tat there r tons of missing links in evolution. Let me ask back a question. If there is no such things as evolution, why do we
1) find so many bones tat changes with age
2) and the bones feature from the suppose older age does not appear in the more recent age
3) the changes suggest a "direction" of change. In the case of human, the changes r from apes to the now living human
Can u explain the phenomenon with ID ?Also I suspect skeptics of the bible who expect the Genesis account to be scientifically congruent might be missing the whole point of things. Not that the Genesis account is not true, but it's probably more true then we can imagine it to be.
Please elaborate on tis statement