English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-06-10 16:11:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Shhhhhhhhhhh....

I want to see if some of the loud mouths have a reasonable answer as to why not...

i am a christian by the way

2007-06-10 16:16:24 · update #1

19 answers

you obviously confuse the word myth with theory. If you had said theory, then this question might have made some sense.

2007-06-10 16:16:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Well the fossil records by the way do not line up to prove evolution. Most of the "skeletons" you find in museums are speculations based on tiny peices of bone. If you found a random stick lying about I'll bet you could come up with a pretty convincing story about how that stick was a part of a Lord of The Rings Tree Ent or something like that. Evolution is in fact STILL A THEORY and cannot be proven. And "among the educated" it is in fact STILL A THEORY which means it is false until proven but it will never be proven. So evolution is false and King Kong is not my great grand daddy and I am also relieved to know that I am not descended from a ball of snot. I know for a fact that we did not evolve from monkeysbut I do believe that when we were created we were given the ability to adapt. Thus explains why some men are harrier than others and why some have darker skin.


Now the BIG BANG... All the Bible (which is my final authority) says is that GOD created the heavens and the earth it never says how. So I believe that it is quite possible for the Big Bang to have happened but not without God speaking it all into existance.

2007-06-10 17:17:19 · answer #2 · answered by Dewey 1 · 0 0

Greetings,

Firstly I would like to say that although God is perfect He also has a Character (this has many references to His character in the Bible) He also has a Will and a Spirit that are not fused together but work in a mind/body/spirit TYPE (emphasis not shouting) relationship. Secondly to all those who are asking or speaking about evolution I would appreciate it if we could define which of the 6 (that I know of) definitions we are referring to. To answer the original question being posed and assuming we are talking about neo-Darwin or post-neo-Darwin evolution I would say that mathematically evolution has not had enough time to occur as the Earth is only 5 billion years old is impossible. I also believe that the 'Big Bang' WILL occur when Jesus returns to Earth but not that it HAS occurred (this is due to the loud noise that everyone will hear when Jesus returns not the creation act)

2007-06-10 16:26:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Both theories are just grasping for straws, but I think evolution takes the prize. Anyone with common sense can see how ridiculous it is to believe that a simple animal can "evolve" into a more complex animal through the action of mutations that somehow are beneficial.

I have used to the example of the photocopy. Take a blurry photograph and copy it on a photocopy machine. Keep reproducing the blurry photo until it starts getting clearer and clearer. Eventually, you will end up with a sharp portrait, suitable for framing. As each copy is made, random errors begin producing a sharper, clearer picture. And that's how evolution works!

ءراقيسكْس

2007-06-10 16:29:49 · answer #4 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 0 0

Evolution is a decent theory-the problem is that all the evidence shows the exact opposite. Why are their lesser evolved beings? It is illogical based on the theory as it exists.

Big Bang is the more absurb theory, but it has at least some chance of plausibility.

P.S. XD-the Christian God is pluperfect then.

2007-06-10 16:18:56 · answer #5 · answered by kmsbean 3 · 0 0

Both are absurd. Both can be disproved. You can't believe in these things and be a Christian. Evolution: If a kangaroo evolved to have a pouch, and that is the only way for the baby kangaroo to live, what happened to all the babies before they had their pouches? And, where did all the trees and plant come from, you can't make a seed out of nothing. Big Bang: I actually like this one GOD SAID LET IT BE AND BANG THERE IT WAS!!!

2007-06-10 16:22:37 · answer #6 · answered by doucheer 2 · 0 0

Seems it's time to bust this out again. Christians who would pat this jackoff on the back, I KNOW for a FACT that your god doesn't exist. How about that?

I can say with 100% certainty that God (capitalized to mean the Christian god), as Christians define him, doesn't exist. I can say this because a self-contradiction can't exist.

Another example: one can say with all certainty that a square with three sides does not exist. Not because one has searched every iota of existence without finding it, but because a three-sided square is impossible, being a self-contradiction. So too, is the Christian God, as Christians define him. So, here's the short version of my proof that the Christian God does not exist (there is more than one self-contradiction that will fulfill the same purpose, but I'm only laying out one):

The Christian God is defined as perfect, and also as a creator (it isn't really important what God created or didn't create, just that he created something). To be perfect is to be complete. To be complete is to lack nothing. Desire can only exist when there is a lack of something (that something is what is desired). Therefore, since God is perfect, he desires nothing. Since he desires nothing, obviously he would not desire to create anything. A perfect being would do nothing but exist, because actively DOING something would imply a desire (to do whatever it is), which a perfect being cannot have by definition.

Therefore, an entity who is both perfect and a creator is a self-contradiction that cannot exist, just like a three-sided square. Since Christians define their god this way, one can say with absolute certainty that this god does not, indeed, cannot exist.

2007-06-10 16:15:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I am a Christian, and I find neither absurd. I believe that God may have used both in creation.

I choose to let God be God and let God be God in God's way, not in the way I think He ought to be Himself and do what He does.

God is not DEFINED. To define something is to imply understanding it, and having a cognitive grasp of it. God is undefinable. We are limited and finite and therefore should not pretend to understand the infinite.

Can a flea or tick define a dog? No, but the flea knows exactly what the dog means to him: food. Can we define God? No, but those of us who are in relationship with him can tell you what He means to us: life.

Even though we cannot define God, we can describe God. Even in our describing him, we describe him in ways that He has chosen to make himself known to us so that we can understand him a little bit.

We believe God is Love.
We believe God is Holy.

The reason we believe these things are because he has chosen to make himself known to us in ways that we can understand.

To try to impose "rules" upon God to prove He doesn't exist is beyond nonsensical.

To be perfect is to lack nothing, therefore desire nothing? Where does that come from?

Those are some pretty strange rules. Fortunately, God does not have to live according to what you say.

But when you die, you will wish you have lived according to what He says.

You see, every atheist turns into a believer after he/she dies. Sadly, by then, it is too late.

2007-06-10 16:16:27 · answer #8 · answered by Tim H 4 · 0 0

Your questions are ABSURD and your understanding of both science and of Christianity are appalling. May God forgive you for driving people away from him with your nonsensical questions, and also for your awful spelling. "Absurb" is not a word.

2007-06-10 16:21:58 · answer #9 · answered by jamesfrankmcgrath 4 · 1 0

Neither is absurd. Both are the best supported current scientific explanations. And yes, I am a Christian.

2007-06-10 16:15:27 · answer #10 · answered by SWolf 1 · 5 0

Evolution has long been fact among the educated. You can't go to a museum and see Neanderthal bones without seeing the natural selection at work.

Big bang is a best guess. ie, it makes sense, but not taken as fact just yet.

2007-06-10 16:14:47 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers