How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, evolutionists believe in a resurrection of all life from nothing. You all say "oh evolution has been proven" but really there are thousands of things wrong with it and if only one thing is wrong or missing the whole theory goes down the drain. Why do you still believe we evolved from nothing? That seems ignorant to me.
2006-09-12 07:01:53 · 33 answers · asked by SummerSweetheart 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Rori: Then who created the bacteria?
2006-09-12 07:06:34 · update #1
That's a very good point. How can a couple of dead things come together and form a living thing? The answer: It can't! I can't believe some people are foolish enough to believe that.
2006-09-12 07:04:33 · answer #1 · answered by BeeFree 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
For the love of the God you follow so blindly, do some research.
First of all, evolution and resurrection are completely different. For example, evolution is a fact and resurrection is a fabled impossibility.
Secondly, what's wrong with the statement that more complex life forms evolved from less complex life forms? Believing that turtles with longer necks survived because shorter-necked turtles couldn't get at food wouldn't contradict the existence of a god. I'm agnostic, but it seems to me that it's more impressive to say, "Look at all these really cool animals, evolution made them, God made creatures evolve" than to say, "Nope, always been this way, no alternative." You are an ignorant moron.
Do you even know what a scientific theory is? A scientific theory isn't just some scientists saying, "I have a theory..." and everyone believing it because scientists said it. The strength of science is that it changes when credible evidence arises. It's only a weakness because religious fanatics point out that they have one answer for everything. God did it, God did that, and God did that for fun.
Here's a simplified example of how evolution works:
You have two islands. There are some turtles on those islands with no way of getting off of their island. The plants on island A have foliage low to the ground. The plants on island B have foliage high up. To survive on Island B, a turtle would have to have a long neck. Turtles born without long necks will die and therefore will not reproduce. To survive on Island A (look at some turtle anatomy and you'll see my point), a short neck would be needed. Long-necked turtles would die, therefore they wouldn't reproduce. Therefore, Island A would have short-necked turtles and Island B would have long-necked turtles.
Evolution and the origin of the universe or the existence of a God are different. Natural selection is a common-sense fact. The existence of God is an entirely seperate question. It's sort of like if you're arguing with someone about the best way to repair a bike. You argue one point about bike repair. The other guy offers his point about bike repair. You point out that bike repair doesn't explain how to make a good milkshake and consider yourself victorious. It makes no sense, and you're a moron.
2006-09-12 07:30:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, evolutionist are not laughing at the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ (there are more flaws in a man coming back from the dead than the theory of evolution). There are thousands of things right about evolution and several serious problems in the Bible (among other things, I Kings blatantly states that pi = 3, not 3.14, measure a circle, you'll see I'm right). Why do I believe we evolved from nothing, because it makes sense. I have great respect for the teachings of Jesus, but I refuse to go against my own reason and judgement and believe something just because a book says something else.
2006-09-12 07:10:07 · answer #3 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Creation advocates' arguments often lie in the holes science can not explain. The fault in this arguement is that science has never claimed to be all knowing. Just because science can not explain the mechanism of a process now, does not mean this discovery will not eventually happen.
Over a century ago we were not able to explain how lightning was created. Believers attributed it to the wrath of God. Now we not only know how lighting is created, we harness its energy daily (electricity). We see no argument now from Christians when they turn on a lightbulb or use their computer.
Please take a science class before you argue about something you seem to know nothing about. Evolution explains the mechanism for the diversity of species we see today. Abiogenesis is a separate theory altogether, and although we don't understand the mechanism now, like lightning, it doesn't mean it won't eventually be discovered. At least science is a field of study that admits to not knowing everything. And yet it is a field of constant discovery (backed up by emperical evidence).
2006-09-12 07:16:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What's up with the assumption that evolutionists "laugh" at the resurrection? That's a bit out of line, isn't it?
As for the "there are thousands of things wrong with it," well, that's a flawed argument too, simply because when Christians are called upon to say whether they take every word of the Bible literally, many will suggest that certain statements in the Bible carry more weight than others, or that there are parts that can be discarded these days. Well? If there are things in the Bible that we can say are "wrong" or "outdated", then wouldn't that whole theory go down the drain as well?
As for "evolving from nothing," it makes at least as much sense as a Creation story that has God creating the plants on day three, and not having the day/night circadian rhythm necessary for plant life to grow until day four. That seems pretty ignorant if you ask me.
2006-09-12 07:08:21 · answer #5 · answered by Tommy 4 · 6⤊ 2⤋
What seems ignorant to me is your flawed theory. You are wrong on so many occasions it's almost funny, but as you can't think too much I'll forgive you for it. That said, please try to wrap your head around the following.
In faith, you have certain things you count on. Absolute truths, such as the existance of god. The manner in which you firlmy believe there is a god matters less, but you cannot have faith if you cannot believe in god, I hope you agree. In your question, you mention evolutionists believe in a resurrection of all life from nothing. But this is untrue. first of all, evolutionists don't "believe", but at most they give high credence to a theory because it's been proven more than once in convincing fashion. However, it is not guaranteed to be true, and under evolutionists you will find plenty of agnostics - or people who believe there god created the planets and evolution continued after that. the evolution theory can be challenged, it can be added to and it could - when god materialises and tells us all of - be proven wrong. Such space is not found in faith. Secondly, 'resurrection of life' is a biblical term, in evolutionism there is talk of that BANG at the beginning, but resurrection is physically impossible. Also, when you say 'all life from nothing' again you are referring to a theory, and I am convinced you cannot define 'nothing'. At least scientists are trying to define it.
The major difference between atheists/agnostics on one hand and theists on the other hand, in my opinion, is that the first group know about faith but endeavour to find answers, while the latter group do not need answers. This is what disgusts me most in theists. Mostly, they seem to be fine being shepherded and kept stupid - but at the same time their ignorance doesn't stop them from wanting world domination.
I do not believe we evolved from nothing, I am not ignorant enough to believe in anything at all. But I am interested in finding out who we are and why, and I find faith is merely an instrument to stop humans from being humane. Does this seem ignorant to you? I might care, as soon as you find a way to develop your own opinion.
2006-09-12 07:35:21 · answer #6 · answered by McAtterie 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
OH.....so one mistake (in your opinion) and the whole thing goes down the drain. Yet you would be the one to say that the NUMEROUS mistakes, contradictions, and nonsense in the Bible does not mean that it isn't true.
Ignorance is not the seeking of knowledge with the fact that we have on hand. Ignorance is taking the word of a book a pure fiction and not ever questioning any of it, just defend it against all reason and sense, and anytime any idiot comes up with a completely implausible reason why you are right and evolution is wrong, they you repeat it all rote over and over again until loose the ability to think for yourself.
I am not an atheist, but I am not Christian either. I believe that scientific theories and faith have nothing in common and do not compete with each other. To try and stamp out learning because your faith wants to keep you in the dark about the real world is just stupid.
2006-09-12 07:08:25 · answer #7 · answered by wizard8100@sbcglobal.net 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Evolution says nothing about "dead" things coming to "life", at least not in the sense that most people think of. What you are speaking of is called "abiogenesis", and, contrary to what most think, is outside the scope of evolution. To prove or disprove it does nothing to the theory of evolution.
What abiogenesis proposes is that the organic chemicals floating around in the unique environment of the primordial ocean, due to their chemical and physical properties, were able to form into very simple, self-replicating molecules. Over time, this is what led to DNA, and later complex life forms.
Whether you agree with the theory of abiogenesis or not (and there are some evolutionary biologists that do not), it has no bearing on the theory of evolution. The evidence supporting evolution still exists outside of whether abiogenesis occured or not.
2006-09-12 07:23:31 · answer #8 · answered by entoaggie 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First off nothing comes back to life. Second you are referring to abiogenesis (when and how life originated), and not evolution. You are correct about if anything is shown to be wrong with a theory it is considered false. This has not happened in evolution's case, yet. So to date it is a valid and viable theory for how life evolves, not begins. You should really put some effort into studying something before you try to deny its validity.
2006-09-12 07:13:38 · answer #9 · answered by bc_munkee 5 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is science, and it's an understanding that is progressing from established facts and observations. Religious beliefs have no basis in fact, and are nothing more than man's early attempts to discover how the universe works. Basically, it's old science. And it has been debunked. (Hundreds of years ago, not yesterday)
However, religion has some built-in defense mechanisms that prevent people like yourself from questioning it. You don't realize this, because you're still under its spell.
I don't bother explaining to people like yourself why your beliefs are false. You won't listen to reason. You won't trust logic. Your religion prevents you from doing so. All I can do is point you in a direction, and ask you to have the courage to study for yourself.
I challenge you... I double dog DARE you... to set aside your religious preconceptions. I dare you to read an actual scientific text about evolution, no matter how hard it is for you to accept. I dare you to open your mind to the possibility that perhaps your faith is misplaced.
If your god, and your faith, have any merit, then this exercise should not be any concern to you. You should have no problem entertaining this line of thought, because the 'truth' will win out in the end, right? Well, that's my challenge to you, then. I challenge you to have the courage to test your faith.
Do it for yourself. Do it so that you can come back and rationally argue with atheists about their "beliefs". Understand us, the way we understand you. (We DO understand you) Do this, and you will have gained my respect. Until then, there is nothing to be said. I might as well try to explain algebra to a goldfish.
2006-09-12 07:12:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
The term resurrection is used in the literal sense to mean either the religious concept of the reunion of the spirit and the body of a dead person, or the return to life of a dead person. Wikipedia
If is not alive to begin with, how can nothing be resurrected?
2006-09-12 07:05:33 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋