[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

Won't his teacher be surprised when she googles his paper and finds he stole references from here.

Can we just call her and warn her?

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

Thank you Ezekiel Bathfire, and although i can see you are very strong in your faith, could you re-write the same message as if you were preaching to the uniniated? There is nothing in there that i can quote in an essay. Maybe you could just build upin what you said?

Now I get it. You're here to see if you can find ridiculous quotes you can use to poke fun at us.

Later, punk.

(Thanks, Star Finder, for translating from "atheist God-mocker" to English.)

[Star Finder]

Re: Science and Religion

You really are a bloody idiot damned to beg for crusts of bread outside the great hall of heros in the afterlife..

As an Athiest, i firmly belive that Evolution is the most credible theory for the birth of life

TWIT! you don't even know your own heathen ideology. Abiogenesis is your crackpot theory for the beginning of life NOT evolution. gah!

If you were to draw the line X-Y, you would mark 3 points on the graph

NO you stupid git! you would mark TWO points with a line named XY. Mr smarty farty pants pooped his pants.

to explain the basis of your faith to anyone who reads it, and then i will take any information i feel relevant and twist and distort it to make you look bad and stupid because that's how I roll.

Well you are a cheeky mf I'd say that for sure.

And thank you for helping me with my latin

Latin!? Your homo greek butt is spreading in the wind you moron!

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Thank you Ezekiel Bathfire, and although i can see you are very strong in your faith, could you re-write the same message as if you were preaching to the uniniated? There is nothing in there that i can quote in an essay. Maybe you could just build upin what you said?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Science and Religion

I suggest you watch a TV program that Sir David Attenborough made for the BBC called Darwin and the tree of life. It is probably on Youtube. It shows you evidence for missing links.

No, this merely shows lies designed to turn people from God.

I am aware of the Black White moth case, and the reason why there are monkeys and humans co-existing is the same reason that there is grizzley bears and polar bears; the evolved in order to adapt to different conditions.

Rubbish! God made them like that and Adam named them.

I have never read anywhere that evolutionists claimed that chemicals struck by lightning created life- wasnt that frankenstein?

No it wasn’t but I’m glad to see your young mind is not totally corrupted with the evil of secular science

Anyway, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the birth of life, just its, ahem, evolution.

…and it doesn’t do it as well as the Bible.

Do you have a position within the church?

Kneeling before Christ.

Also, do you feel that the quote unfairly views all Creatonists as the same

No, they are not the same, none of them agree. They all have their own “theories”

trying to find science to back up their claims?

No, they are enemies of God bent on the work of the devil.
1Tm:6:20: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

That is because evolutionists claim the Bible is false.

They often then claim that they are Christian and believe in God, while denying that the Bible is true. This confuses people, who then think they can have both.

God is all or nothing.


Which is it? A theory, or a fact?

Does Mr. Williams not know the difference?

There is ample evidence of micro-evolution. We agree with that. Look at the black/white moths case study. (I'll let you dig that up.)

There is limited evidence of macro-evolution. Never once have the so-called "missing links" been found, for example. How is something a "fact" when you don't have full evidence?

Further, if monkeys evolved into humans through "natural selection", why is it there are still monkeys co-existing with humans, where they supposedly "evolved"? If the human was superior, why did the monkey continue to persist? Does that not argue directly against the "natural selection" theory?

Finally, evolution (change in time within animal and plant species) is used by atheists like yourself to explain the origins of life. In no way has it ever been shown that life can arise spontaneously, but evolutionists are all-or-nothing. They claim that because a dog can be cross-bred with other dogs to create a new breed, or that the dominant coloration of a population of moths changes over time as those who match their surroundings survive or do not, that it means that several chemicals struck by lightning can create complex living organisms.

Where did the chemicals come from, and the lightning? Evolution has no explanation other than "a big explosion of something from nothing".

I suggest you watch a TV program that Sir David Attenborough made for the BBC called Darwin and the tree of life. It is probably on Youtube. It shows you evidence for missing links.

I am aware of the Black White moth case, and the reason why there are monkeys and humans co-existing is the same reason that there is grizzley bears and polar bears; the evolved in order to adapt to different conditions.

I have never read anywhere that evolutionists claimed that chemicals struck by lightning created life- wasnt that frankenstein? Anyway, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the birth of life, just its, ahem, evolution.

I belive that Dr. Williams was saying that it is something that you accept, rather than something you belive; a theory, and a fact, rather than a belief, and opinion.

Do you have a position within the church? Also, do you feel that the quote unfairly views all Creatonists as the same- trying to find science to back up their claims?

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

others on this site call it Evilution.

That is because evolutionists claim the Bible is false.

They often then claim that they are Christian and believe in God, while denying that the Bible is true. This confuses people, who then think they can have both.

God is all or nothing.

"Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief."

James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University

Which is it? A theory, or a fact?

Does Mr. Williams not know the difference?

There is ample evidence of micro-evolution. We agree with that. Look at the black/white moths case study. (I'll let you dig that up.)

There is limited evidence of macro-evolution. Never once have the so-called "missing links" been found, for example. How is something a "fact" when you don't have full evidence?

Further, if monkeys evolved into humans through "natural selection", why is it there are still monkeys co-existing with humans, where they supposedly "evolved"? If the human was superior, why did the monkey continue to persist? Does that not argue directly against the "natural selection" theory?

Finally, evolution (change in time within animal and plant species) is used by atheists like yourself to explain the origins of life. In no way has it ever been shown that life can arise spontaneously, but evolutionists are all-or-nothing. They claim that because a dog can be cross-bred with other dogs to create a new breed, or that the dominant coloration of a population of moths changes over time as those who match their surroundings survive or do not, that it means that several chemicals struck by lightning can create complex living organisms.

Where did the chemicals come from, and the lightning? Evolution has no explanation other than "a big explosion of something from nothing".

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

I asked it, because that is the exam question which i have been set:

Discuss the conflict Between Science and Religion with reference to Evolution and Creationism.

The issue is not with Creationism or Evolution, it is just that, in my opinion, the confict being asked in the question is more pronounced between Evolution and Creationism than any other topic; others on this site call it Evilution.

"Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief."

James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University


you asked for a question: how do you react to that quote? Is it a fair analysis, or is it putting all Creationists into one box?

Also, do you have an official position within the church? Not that it matters, just so i can give you your full title should i quote you in an essay.

thank you.

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

I dont think that i did; i happen to know that darwin was a highly devout man who delayed the pubishing of his book because he thought it would be damaging to his faith.

Im also not claiming anything on this forum, just asking you to claim things.

Then why put evolution AGAINST creationism? Why not show how they work together?

And you still haven't asked us an actual question.

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Then why are you claiming that Darwin denied God's existence and believed that all life came from an explosion of nothing into something?

I dont think that i did; i happen to know that darwin was a highly devout man who delayed the pubishing of his book because he thought it would be damaging to his faith.

Im also not claiming anything on this forum, just asking you to claim things.

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

I'm done helping you. All the information you seek is here or somewhere else on google. Good bye for now.

Thank you Nobar; i was pleasantly suprised by your willingness to help me, and your ability to not let our conflicting views hinder us.

You have been very helpfull. [And thank you for helping me with my latin;p]

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

thank you so much; this is exactly the kind of thing i am looking for:

shades of grey within the two subject areas, and the differences between them.

However, i have read Genesis, and On the Origin of Species; i would be foolish to try and write a report without doing so.

Then why are you claiming that Darwin denied God's existence and believed that all life came from an explosion of nothing into something?

[ETHICSTUDENT]

Re: Science and Religion

Go here:

www.biblegateway.com

Read the first five chapters of Genesis. It should take you less than 10 minutes.

God created everything. That means that it didn't evolve from mud.

Microevolution -- within a genus -- is accepted. Dog breeding is one prime example. This is exactly what Darwin supported.

If you bothered to read "On the Origin of Species" before writing a paper on evolution, you'd know that Darwin never suggested that evolution explained life "evolving" from raw chemicals, which came from an explosion of nothing into something.

Macroevolution -- a fish "evolving" into a dog -- is not accepted by Christians.

thank you so much; this is exactly the kind of thing i am looking for:

shades of grey within the two subject areas, and the differences between them.

However, i have read Genesis, and On the Origin of Species; i would be foolish to try and write a report without doing so.

[JennyD]

Re: Science and Religion

Did you look those up, or do you know them off the top of your head?
One of the major problems for me is having to find bible quotes to back up the opinions of people; would you happen to know any that specifically say that Evolution is incorrect? Or any that may suggest otherwise?

Go here:

www.biblegateway.com

Read the first five chapters of Genesis. It should take you less than 10 minutes.

God created everything. That means that it didn't evolve from mud.

Microevolution -- within a genus -- is accepted. Dog breeding is one prime example. This is exactly what Darwin supported.

If you bothered to read "On the Origin of Species" before writing a paper on evolution, you'd know that Darwin never suggested that evolution explained life "evolving" from raw chemicals, which came from an explosion of nothing into something.

Macroevolution -- a fish "evolving" into a dog -- is not accepted by Christians.

[Nobar King]

Re: Science and Religion

I'm done helping you. All the information you seek is here or somewhere else on google. Good bye for now.