Truth is bitter ? or Truth is ruthless ?
2006-08-17 05:38:54 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's Adam not Adem and it's Charles not Chales. It's also Holy Book not Books. Many Books written by many prophets is just One Book of God.
Truth Changes as time and people change. But it is said "Generation comes and Generation goes but earth is still the same". That is the bitterness of truth. It 's oftentimes the people are who are ruthless, not the truth. Because truth will oftentimes set people free.
2006-08-17 05:54:23 · answer #1 · answered by Rallie Florencio C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is actually a great deal of science behind creation and scientifically creation makes a lot more sense than evolution. Check this quote out, "To say that the eye could have been formed by natural selection is absolutly absured" - Charles Darwin. So what would evolve first, stomach acid or the stomach? If there was no stomach acid, early life would have died of starvation unable to digest food. Without the stomach to contain the acid it would have killed off the early life. For more information on Creation science check out www.drdino.com.
2006-08-17 12:47:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Adam. Look at the sun. That is the same sun that has been there since days began. The only sun that has ever existed. The same one sun that we all on the face of the earth see. The sun rises and it sets like clockwork. It doesn't matter how many generations have come and gone, that same sun, that we all know, is there, rising and setting as usual.
Dinasaurs were warmed by it, Adam and Eve too, Noah, before and during the flood,(that has been proven), and Moses saw the sun too.
Gee! I wonder how primordial ooze stuck it there! Have you ever heard of a bang so big, that it can shoot an everlasting ball of fire clear into the atmosphere and suspend it there to light the way of our generations for all of time?
2006-08-17 12:54:43 · answer #3 · answered by classyjazzcreations 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Charles Darwin was greatly influence by his grandad who inspired the book Frankenstien... good ol Erasmus Darwin..
He put out dead meat and within days flies and worms, life from death!!!! Mary Shelly was so impressed she wrote Frankensiten... bad science...good fiction
Grandad was amember of the lunar society met at the full moon.... and you can bet it was a howl!!! ... he believed in the transmigration of souls form lower animals to higher to man... and that is the environment Charles rew up under..
Grandad had a family insignia 'everythign form seashells' showing Charles had not a single original idea in his head but was predisposed to reject the Bible, the one degree he had was in Bible
Charles was like him... bad science but in his case bad fiction not good fiction of Mary Shelly
in his theory Irish were inferior to English, Blacks inferior to whites.. he even ordered some sub human in his view aborigenes to ba caught alive and taxidermied.
In the end Darwinism is headed for exinction... as was Lamarkianism.. Even moderns naturalists scamble to come up with alternative to rescue the unrescuable
ironically nothing positive in the daily practical application os medicine technology or agriculture automechanics or the like rests on evolution however many negatives such as social darwinism do..
sonclusion: Stick with the Bible... In the begining God was there... in the end God will still be there
2006-08-17 12:47:17 · answer #4 · answered by whirlingmerc 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Simple as this bud, both are true.
Remember the Bible was writen many years ago and some words had different meaning than as of today. Even though in the Bible it says it took 7 days to create the earth, one day for God could be millions of years, thus the creation of the earth although it says it took 6 days it could have been millions of years.
As a debote catholic that has put all his beliefs into question so I can believe in it because my faith and my reasoning tells me and not becaus esomeone told me to, I can tell you and many priests that the old testament is not 100% real, most of it is based on stories and in mayority, it was designed to prepare the human sould for the coming of Jesus, so some of them might be true butmost are based on events with some religios touch added.
2006-08-17 12:49:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Charles Darwin's Evolution has been modified, but Evolution is essentially correct, as scientific evidence proves. Adam is just a crude myth. I cannot see how intelligent and educated people could believe such naive tales that are scientifically disproven.
2006-08-17 12:46:23 · answer #6 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Darwin
2006-08-17 12:44:55 · answer #7 · answered by Austinite 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
There are other historical documents that prove the Bible and it's stories true.
Charles Darwin had no proof and renounced his theory.
I believe the HOLY BIBLE!
2006-08-17 12:45:10 · answer #8 · answered by Salvation is a gift, Eph 2:8-9 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The one who made everything. God.
Darwin was just a religious cult leader.
2006-08-17 12:45:17 · answer #9 · answered by Casey M 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
are you trying to say Charles Darwin or Adam?
if so Adam, Chucky has already been proven wrong
2006-08-17 12:44:32 · answer #10 · answered by firechap20 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋