The religous comic books dont count as they are just a load of old wives tales.
I will acknowledge any offerings that are fully backed.
2006-08-12
04:23:59
·
48 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Pooteo, what kind of answer was that.
we know why we exist, we evolved from lower life forms. DUH
2006-08-12
04:26:54 ·
update #1
WWHHHHOOOOOOAAAAAAHHHHHHH
Are you reaallllly stupid.
I said give me evidence of creation with supported docs, so I can check out your claim.
Just saying look there a Hair = proof of creation is reallly ignorant.
2006-08-12
04:28:25 ·
update #2
VERY NICE MIKE GUITAR. Hope everyone get to read that.
2006-08-12
04:30:57 ·
update #3
SLICK BOY 40 GIVE ME LINKS SO I CAN RESEARCH AND VERIFY YOUR OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS. oh and read the link given by the guy above.
2006-08-12
04:34:02 ·
update #4
LIZARD MAMA, there is no evidence for creation on the museums website. They just ramble on about man and dinosaur cohabiting. No supported references.
2006-08-12
04:47:07 ·
update #5
Hobbes folow th e link on Guitar mikes post will ya.
2006-08-12
04:48:26 ·
update #6
Rachel, if you are impressed wit hthat then take up Astology or cosmology, you will be really impressed.
2006-08-12
04:49:51 ·
update #7
LARRY YOU IGNORANT BUFFOON.
What did I ask above. I said give me things I can research. The bible comic is not worth the paper it is prointed on. Even GOD freaks state that it is not menat to be taken literally.
2006-08-12
04:52:51 ·
update #8
SAUD, read guitar mikes link. REALLY YOU MUST. DO NOT DISMISS IT BECAUSE IT FULLY ANSWERS YOUR STATEMENT.
2006-08-12
04:54:07 ·
update #9
DOG LOVER PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ GUITAR MIKES LINK.
2006-08-12
04:55:44 ·
update #10
do you exist?
2006-08-12 04:25:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by pooteo1 3
·
1⤊
5⤋
Christianity and Science have typically not gone together. However, I can offer this piece. Several million years ago, complex life just suddenly appeared on our planet. Life that was not here suddenly was. God operates using the laws of Science, and the only reason that we know about these laws, is because God wants us to be like him and wants us to have his knowledge.
Creationism is a fact, however so is evolution. Evolution simply means change and everything changes.
Mainstream Christians take the Bible too literally. The Hebrew word for day can mean three things.
The first meaning is a standard 24 hour period. This would mean that the Earth is only 4,000 years old. Too much evidence to the contrary. I know that God can do all things, however God still uses science and still has to follow the laws of science.
The second meaning of the Hebrew word day would be that one day to God is 1,000 years to us. If this is the case, the Earth is roughly 13,000 years old. Still to much evidence to the contrary.
The third meaning is an undetermined amount of time grouped into a collective called a day because the things which happened in that "day" are the same. This is most likely the definition which Moses used when writing the book of Genesis and discussing the creative periods.
I will restate, Creationism is real, God does exist and he did create this beautiful planet upon which we live. God is a master scientist and follows the same rules for science which we have to follow as well.
2006-08-12 04:58:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is really amazing how you can dispute a written text as a comic book.
Evolution itself has been an accepted theory with scientists for hundreds of years as acceptable theory.
No and I mean no evidence from one species to another has ever been linked. Microbial bacteria have been changed and altered and some, not many say this is how evolution works.
Evolution is suppose to be a genetic or heretic change that brings about a better species.
There has not been any proof of evolution with DNA tests which is what scientists say is necessary.
If evolution were plausible there would be no disease, aids, heart conditions or the like.
Animals in the wild adapt to their surroundings not evolve.
Man could not have come from lower life forms as the science world has not found any missing species to confirm a DNA link.
Good luck in your search but we were created as written proof shows.
Just because you do not understand it does not mean it exists.
Explaining the creation is not a one line proof.
It requires a deeper understanding of life and how it was created coupled with study, yes you have to study.
You see a scientist has to go through years to understand and apply his trade. Can you say the same for the study of the Bible?
Example for you..
Are you smarter, faster, and less prone to diseases than your parents?
Seems you may have a challenge there.
God Bless
2006-08-12 04:49:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by beedaduck 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Im not here to try and convince you since you are just obviously trying to get a reaction. In fact I don't even want a response to this but.... with evolution, or the big bang theory each reaction leads to another reaction right? well were did the first reaction come from? what could have reacted with what to start this whole process in motion? the other thing is if those theories are true, we would have to be able to see some living proof of them too... I mean they should be visible on some smaller scale with shorter time lines shouldn't they? Like shouln't we see evolution in different stages already happening. like if we evolved from chimp like beings... why is there no species between us and the chimps? and don't tell me that there was and then we killed them all off. Modern man can only still manage to make a small dent in the population with mass weapons nevermind killing off half the world with rocks and sticks.
2006-08-12 04:37:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's not possible to have evidence for creation, because it is impossible to have evidence against it.
It's not falsifiable.
To prove this, ask any theist what evidence they would accept which would DISPROVE creation.
If they can't answer that, or say that they'd never accept evidence to the contrary, then they've logically conceded that creationism is not science, it's not testable, and therefore can never claim to have supporting evidence.
of course, fundies don't know anything about the scientific method or the logic behind it, so they won't understand the point anyway.
2006-08-12 04:27:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
There is some extensive data out there...too much to post here. I suggest starting with the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, TX. They have a large collection of data. Google them.
2006-08-12 04:28:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by lizardmama 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Prominent Atheist "Discovers" Aquinas' Proof for the Existence of "a god"
Only 750 years behind the times
December 13, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Professor Antony Flew, a leading proponent of atheism and defender of Darwinian Evolution, has re-invented the philosophical wheel and announced that he has come to believe in God, or more precisely, in the existence of a god, based on evidence of creation. Flew told the Associated Press in an interview that he has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe.
Flew said of his newly discovered god, that it was the god of deism, an Enlightenment notion of a divine "watchmaker" who, after creating the universe and winding it up and setting it going, had nothing further to do with it. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose," said Flew.
Flew spent several years at Toronto's York University after retiring from full time professorships in England in 1982. His Deism has been growing for the last several months. He wrote in the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine, "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
Flew's explanation, that a god, or divine intelligence of some kind must exist because of the existence of extremely complex biological systems such as the DNA molecule, leaves him just over 700 years behind the times.
St Thomas Aquinas, in his book for beginners, the Summa Theologica, called Flew's "discovery" the "Argument from Design," and added four more logical proofs for the existence of God. Most modern philosophers, firmly wedded to the materialist philosophies originating in the 18th century, instead of refuting or attempting to disprove St. Thomas' proofs, have simply ignored them.
Flew has written about his 'conversion' in a new edition of his 1966 book, "God and Philosophy," to be published next year by Prometheus Books. He said, "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."
To read St. Thomas Aquinas Five Proofs:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
2006-08-12 04:48:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
ok.. look at a worm here, just a simple ordinary worm, but a worm has to have a heart, and lungs, and every other organ who put those organs in the worms body. Where did the animals come from the we might've evolved from, they HAD to of been created by SOMEONE.. how did the earth come.. even if stars or something crashed, where did the stars come from? It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang theory then to believe in an ultimate creator. Did you know that. Well now you do. just keep tracing bak, so you think we evolved from apes, where did the apes come from, where did the whatever the apes evolved from come from, and so on and some forth.. someone had to be the creator!
2006-08-12 04:32:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by dog_luver714 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
If I could prove George Washington existed, I could also prove that Adam and Eve were the beginning of Creation.
I think that you are looking for tangible evidence like a digital picture of God making the earh, or a video of Adam and Eve eating the fruit in the Garden of knowledge. Cameras were not available yet.
Sorry, I cannot supply proof of Creation, nor proof that George Washington ever was president.
2006-08-12 04:34:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by joe_on_drums 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The eyeball is all the evidence you need. Darwin tried, but failed to explain the creation of an eyeball.
No matter what side of the creation/evolution argument that you are on, you have to have a faith. You either have faith in a Creator or you have faith in the fact that some scientist will come up with an explanation for the gaps in the theory of evolution.
In the Bible book of Romans the apostle Paul ponders the exact question that you ask. 2000 years ago he gave this response to your question:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Are you supressing the truth, which can be plainly seen?
2006-08-12 04:44:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by khcs89120 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
You can not prove it any more than evolution can be proven. But if you stop and think about how the earth is just the right distance from the sun, how our entire solar system works, the water, plentiful food, reproductive organs for all creatures, our respiratory system. These are wayyy more complicated than building a computer or making a car. Do the computers and cars create themselves?
2006-08-12 04:29:00
·
answer #11
·
answered by Rachel 4
·
2⤊
1⤋