Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can

last SG · 2006-07-11T01:27:27+00:00

read my post, the reason Creation is not in the bio text books is due to politics not science. cause Creation had a tack to religion and therefore, is block...

davidche SG

Originally posted by sgquitter:

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.

Rolling Eyes [/b]

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??

ben1xy SG

it's ok lah. just read the things that make sense. the rest juz gloss over

SingaporeTyrannosaur SG

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.

sgquitter SG

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...

stupidissmart SG

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

« Previous Page