Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

page: 5
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by EthanT
I didn't participate in this survey because like most along these lines, it seemed like an "either, or".

What about for those who believe in God AND evolution?



Then you are one confused individual.


(No but seriously, if you believe that your really in no mans land).


Why? Are you saying God couldn't have possibly created the Earth by means of a process that includes evolution? I've always thought it was quite close-minded of those who put God in a box like that.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by EthanT
I didn't participate in this survey because like most along these lines, it seemed like an "either, or".

What about for those who believe in God AND evolution?



Then you are one confused individual.


(No but seriously, if you believe that your really in no mans land).


Why? I think evolution is proof of intelligent design. It's a self preserving system. I think one can believe in God and evolution. It doesn't mean someone is confused. It means they think differently from you.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


lol jinx on the first line.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by snarfbot
i prefer to believe in something greater than "it is because it does"

I prefer to believe I am a superhero.
Beliefs based on what we like is fun, isn't it.


lol wow, apples to oranges, it neither refutes or remotely addresses the ideas presented in my post.

seriously though snarky comments dont make a good argument, so what is your opinion on the actual content, does the universe just exist because it does? or do you feel that something greater created it?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
It would be interesting to see the results if the only options to choose where "agree" or "disagree".

Sometimes eliminating the gray area helps to clarify where the majority of the stance lies.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


There is no missing link. This is just a term bandied about by pop-science writers and Creationists. The fossil record we have is quite complete when it comes to hominids. We may not be able to go all the way back to our common ancestor with other modern primates, but we do have a complete record from modern Homo sapiens sapiens to Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived seven million years ago. As for Darwin being a Mason there's a little problem with that, he was an invalid. For a long period of his life he didn't really leave his house. So, it seems kind of hard to believe that not only did he join and regularly attend a Lodge, but then went on to become a 33rd Degree Mason when he didn't leave his property. As for him being an atheist, I'll let him correct you on that in his own words,


I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


The reason we do not marry close relatives now, is because we are more likely to share common genetic defects which could cause serious defects in resulting children. God only gave the commands about not marrying close relatives to Moses, many years after Adam and Eve.

But Adam and Eve had perfect genes so this was not an issue. Genes have been gatherering defects ever since we are, if you like, "Devolving"

Even Abraham, who lived some hundreds of years after the Flood (which was some
1700 years after creation) was still able to marry his half-sister, Sarah and there is no hint of any biological defects in the offspring.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by spikey
So, correct me if i'm wrong, but basically what you're saying here is that you believe all human life is the result of an incestuous interbreeding of Adam's children?

In one manner of speaking, yes.

However, it can also be assumed that the entire human race (according to Genesis 7) comes from Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives. However, we still have some incest and interbreeding issues.


I'd say it's chronic!


First we are to believe Adam and his family..kept it in the family..then i guess this 'God' fellow was surprised when the whole human race turned out to be a band of insane and depravity ridden loonies, and decided to commit genocide saving only Noah and his family, because in the whole world, even in the deepest jungles and the highest and remote plains of the world, they were the only human beings worthy of avoiding the slaughter...then to repopulate, Noah and his lot commit incest again?

Hmmm...



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by mister.old.school
 


The reason we do not marry close relatives now, is because we are more likely to share common genetic defects which could cause serious defects in resulting children. God only gave the commands about not marrying close relatives to Moses, many years after Adam and Eve.

But Adam and Eve had perfect genes so this was not an issue. Genes have been gatherering defects ever since we are, if you like, "Devolving"

Even Abraham, who lived some hundreds of years after the Flood (which was some
1700 years after creation) was still able to marry his half-sister, Sarah and there is no hint of any biological defects in the offspring.



Please..i insist..'IN YOUR OPINION' should be compulsory for stuff like this...this is too much mate, much too much.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


These results were slightly harder to predict than the other polls, but it's fairly close to what I was expecting. It seems to be missing a question though:

"The origins of human life on planet earth are the result of a combination of terrestrial dna and extraterrestrial dna, defined by the science of genetics, engineered by the Anunnaki thousands of years ago."

edit on 29-8-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: spelling, and change "life" to "human life"

I wouldn't go as far as to include the Anunnaki, but it is certainly possible that life on Earth arose more than once or was a result of a combination of abiogenesis and panspermia.

Of course with panspermia, abiogenesis still has to happen someplace.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by EthanT
I didn't participate in this survey because like most along these lines, it seemed like an "either, or".

What about for those who believe in God AND evolution?



Then you are one confused individual.


(No but seriously, if you believe that your really in no mans land).


Why? Are you saying God couldn't have possibly created the Earth by means of a process that includes evolution? I've always thought it was quite close-minded of those who put God in a box like that.
.

Not at all, but the bible totally contradicts evolution and clearly outlines how we came to be, their is no mention of evolution. So yes it is possible that God could have chosen to do that, but it is not what he did. You cannot be a Christian and be a evolutionist and if you are your basically calling God a liar.
edit on 29-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


150 years and yet secular scientist's have yet to find the "missing link" because its not there? Duh!.


Which missing link are you wanting to see?

Here this a nice little wrap up of that argument:
Fun little video clip

Damn turnip herders.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


NO..it seems for the most part people on here have agreed they are nothing but an ancestor of monkies...The purpose for which is to pro-create and propagate the species for the continuation of such species...They don't wish to believe that somebody or something is above them and therefore cannot tell them what is right and what is wrong..In my experience this is what most people think of religion, something that dictates how they should live their life and for that most people in general do not want to believe in God. Instead most people have chosen to make themselves to be their god. Having done so, there is no need of a higher power for they themselves are that higher power and therefore the resultant effect is they don't believe in creation, God or religion...I personally have chosen to believe in something higher then myself, you and many others have not...If I have come off rude and unapologetic, then I am sorry for being rude, it was not my intention to do so. However I do remain unapologetic for my belief in God.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
But Adam and Eve had perfect genes so this was not an issue.

Are you applying your own inference, or is there some hint within the Bible that explains this?

What about the genes of Noah and his three sons (and their wives)? Where can we find information in the Bible to explain their limited gene pool?



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarfbot

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by snarfbot
i prefer to believe in something greater than "it is because it does"

I prefer to believe I am a superhero.
Beliefs based on what we like is fun, isn't it.


lol wow, apples to oranges, it neither refutes or remotely addresses the ideas presented in my post.

seriously though snarky comments dont make a good argument, so what is your opinion on the actual content, does the universe just exist because it does? or do you feel that something greater created it?


It is apples to apples. You said you believe because you like to believe...your belief is in a supernatural daddy figure, fair enough, so my belief is that I am actually the supernatural thing...not seeing where the difference is.

I don't know what "created" it...energy cannot be created/destroyed...so, clearly its been around in some form forever and ever eternity, etc...meaning nothing could have possibly created it to begin with...considering it cannot ever be created nor destroyed, so the question becomes...is there a grand manipulator of energy, or did it simply go through a very long natural process.

I do not fill god in the blanks of questions I have...that is not an answer...that is a substitute instead of seeking the answers.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

...theres something happening here... what it is aint exactly clear... theres a man with a gun over there - telling me i got to beware... think its time we stop, children... whats that sound?... everybody look whats going down...

...theres battle lines being drawn... nobodys right if everybodys wrong... young people speaking their mind - getting so much resistance from behind... i think its time we stop... hey, whats that sound?... everybody look whats going down...

...what a field day for the heat... mustve been a thousand people in the street - singing songs and
carrying signs - mostly say "hooray for our side"... its time we stop... hey, whats that sound?... everybody look whats going down...

...paranoia strikes deep - into your life it will creep... it starts when you're always afraid - step out of line, the man comes and takes you away... we better stop... hey, whats that sound?... everybody look whats going down...


...stephen stills wrote that in the mid 1960s... fits so perfectly right here today...







posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I disagree. Saying "you can't be a christian when you"...is contradictory, first. Second, I don't think the bible mis-interprets it at all. I think mainstream Christianity mis-interprets the bible (and has been since it was written). The bible uses many metaphors and hyperboles, as well as some literal verses. For example, it is stated by an author in the new testament that a day is but a 1000 years to God. Is it a metaphor or is that PROOF that God is like "yep, 1000 years is a day to me"? I lean more toward it being more of a metaphor to describe that time to God, is not what it seems to us. Do you know for sure if that was literal or not? I doubt it.

Not only is the bible constantly mis-interpreted, but there are countless LOST books that were not included because the church decided to leave them out. (I believe, mostly for political reasons)

It's arrogant and naive to assume you know everything there is to know about the bibles interpretations. There are Scholars who have studied this for thousands of years, yet hundreds of denominations differ on an array of things written in the bible, and they have differed for centuries.
edit on 29-8-2011 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Like the thousends of fossilized transitional forms we should see all over the surfice of the planet.
The transitions don’t exist because the alleged missing link fossils are found in rock layers that were from the Flood or afterwards, which is well after people and the animals in question already existed.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Inquisitive1
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I took the survey, but responded to every question with the answer "Neutral". It's the only suitable answer when you don't know, and finding out is next to impossible.


You are allowed to have an opinion about things you don't fully know.

For instance...you don't know matter of factly that your mother loves you, but you can be of the opinion that she does overall




Come on..be honest, you got that from the movie 'Contact' didn't you.



Hmm...maybe. Been a long time since that crap movie came out, It worked though, meaning you are allowed to have opinions even though you don't have the answers..true dat.

now I wanna watch contact again..perhaps the next go around it won't suck as much.



posted on Aug, 29 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SG-17
 


panspermia and abiogenesis are as yet unproven theories like evolution for example...

Wow!!! I cannot believe nor give props to unproven theories...Their unproven...There is plenty of proof for God. You or me or anyone has to reach the frame of mind where that possibility could exist and once you have...Well you and I will definitely have a much better conversation to which we could agree on alot more things





new topics
top topics
 
82
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join