Your Beliefs!

To repeat what I said in another thread regarding people focusing on the word "theory" in theory of evolution:
If we are simply theorizing about how something works but we have no evidence to back it up, it's called a hypothesis.
If we know something is real and we find out how it works, which can be backed up with tangible evidence, it's called a theory.

People wouldn't deny that gravity exists, yet the way we try to explain gravity is within the theory of relativity (which was the successor to the theory of gravity). There's also theories about things like molecules, plate tectonics, and various other things which people would not deny.

The theory of evolution, therefore, is not "this is how we think it works". That would be the hypothesis of evolution. The theory of evolution is backed up by mountains of evidence, like DNA, the fossil record, etc. All that Darwin did with On the Origin of Species was bring forth an explanation as to how evolution works, because for 100 years before he published it, humankind already knew that species evolved.

And that's also why it's called the "big bang theory" and not the "big bang hypothesis". There is scientific evidence to back it up.

- - - Post Merge - - -


Sorry, I didn't mean from you. I was wondering what kind of evidence Danielkang2 had to disprove evolution and the big bang.

Ah, I didn't mean for someone to write so much /sorry/ I was repeating what my biology teacher said (though, I think I misquoted it a bit, but whatever I'm tired)I fully agree with evolution (much to my parents displeasure)
 
I also find this news about how scientists found the basis of life on a comet interesting. The Bible did say that we were created from dust, but it doesn't necessarily mean dust from our planet. Life had to start from somewhere.
 
I am so sick of all the people saying nobody created God. If God is in fact real, I'd be curious as to how he originated. I wouldn't be happy with him saying that he created himself out of thin air and that's the end of it. That's impossible. His universe must have been created by someone or something, and how did that someone or something originate? I think these questions are important to answer, and it almost seems like a lot of Christians just want to dismiss them because there aren't any answers.
 
Yup Yup.

- - - Post Merge - - -

That is a question people have been asking for centuries. God had to come from somewhere. How can He create Himself if He didn't exist at the time of His creation? It's like the old question; Can God create a boulder He cannot lift? It's a mind boggler.
 
I am so sick of all the people saying nobody created God. If God is in fact real, I'd be curious as to how he originated. I wouldn't be happy with him saying that he created himself out of thin air and that's the end of it. That's impossible. His universe must have been created by someone or something, and how did that someone or something originate? I think these questions are important to answer, and it almost seems like a lot of Christians just want to dismiss them because there aren't any answers.

As my French teacher says when this kids brings up paradoxes (or the question above "Can God create something he cannot lift?"), it's just something we don't understand yet. We don't have enough knowledge to answer the question. I love thinking how He came to be, although I usually get mad because I look up my thoughts and it's nothing :c
 
Last edited:
I am so sick of all the people saying nobody created God. If God is in fact real, I'd be curious as to how he originated. I wouldn't be happy with him saying that he created himself out of thin air and that's the end of it. That's impossible. His universe must have been created by someone or something, and how did that someone or something originate? I think these questions are important to answer, and it almost seems like a lot of Christians just want to dismiss them because there aren't any answers.
God is God. Even if we did know where he originated then the same question will be ask who made that person who made God?
 
God is God. Even if we did know where he originated then the same question will be ask who made that person who made God?

Who says a person made God? We simply don't have the understanding of the world before everything to answer the question.
 
Personally, I think any belief worth having is worth challenging. It is ok to believe in something, but you need to put your beliefs to the test and find out WHY you believe in them. I have seen physical evidence of both evolution (fossils, etc.) and biblical accounts (various skeletons found at the bottom of the Red Sea, various written accounts outside the Bible, ect.). If the world can prove either side definitively; then that is what it is. In the meantime, we are left with theories.
 
God is God. Even if we did know where he originated then the same question will be ask who made that person who made God?

Well, exactly. It would be unnatural for us not to. God isn't just God, though. We don't know anything about him. I'd be happy to have a drink with him sometime, though. I would love to know how he feels about all this nonsense. I wonder if his parents are proud of him, or if he won that contest for Best Planet at school.
 
Last edited:
I'm a Mormon, though I probably come off as an agnostic if you don't know me. I really need to read my book of mormon more

- - - Post Merge - - -

I wonder if his parents are proud of him, or if he won that contest for Best Planet at school.

WHY IS THIS FUNNY
WHY
 
I believe in God, but I don't go to church and I've never read the bible. I just believe there's a higher up.
 
Don't feel guilty. If you want to read your Book of Mormon more; than read it more. If not; than don't. Do what you believe in; conform to YOUR beliefs.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I believe in God, but I don't go to church and I've never read the bible. I just believe there's a higher up.

That's fine. That is how many people are. Church attendance and reading the Bible are not required for salvation as far as I know. The only requirement I know of is found in John 3:16 of the New Testament in the Bible. Of course: this is the Christian belief. There are many other beliefs out there that may be right. Heck; all of them may be right. Maybe we all go to the same place regardless of beliefs. I cannot truly say one way or the other since I have never been there.
 
WHY IS THIS FUNNY
WHY

Well, it's true! There are just so many things I can think of. What about that tree he planted? Did it grow to anything or did it just die? Does he hate his neighbours? Does he get bullied at school? What's his favourite song? Is he gay? These are the kind of questions I'd ask if I had the chance. God sounds like a decent lad, or maybe even a girl.
 
Well, it's true! There are just so many things I can think of. What about that tree he planted? Did it grow to anything or did it just die? Does he hate his neighbours? Does he get bullied at school? What's his favourite song? Is he gay? These are the kind of questions I'd ask if I had the chance. God sounds like a decent lad, or maybe even a girl.

I would love to talk to God! I want to find out why He does what He does and what He (or She) is like. Now all I can think about is playing Ping-Pong with God!
 
I am so sick of all the people saying nobody created God. If God is in fact real, I'd be curious as to how he originated. I wouldn't be happy with him saying that he created himself out of thin air and that's the end of it. That's impossible. His universe must have been created by someone or something, and how did that someone or something originate? I think these questions are important to answer, and it almost seems like a lot of Christians just want to dismiss them because there aren't any answers.


THIS THIS THIS. I swear.

- - - Post Merge - - -

All the answers these Christians are giving us from the bible..lol and idk why I find it so funny.
Most of the things in the bible seem so impossible.
 
"Yes it is sad that children and adults pass away from cancer and disease, but those who remain learn that we can go at any time and that we should learn from what the deceased taught us."
"Cancer is a consequence of sin. Which is what we inflicted on ourselves." (the consequence here, being death usually in younger kids and the elderly, is a punishment.)

Taken from MrPuzzleMan (and Danielkang2), which is who I was talking to.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Please tell me :) It has been proven by science (as has the Theory of Evolution, which actually can be used as proof we all came from a God. It states we all came (yes, everything.) from one common ancestor).. As a Christian, you can't turn a blind eye to what has been proven through a lot of tests. What's next, fossils are fake?

Ok, here are my rebuttals. If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.
They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.


One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.

Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection.

According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.
The "Living Fossil" Fish Proves Evolution is Wrong

The Coelacanth fish was touted to be a transitional form with half-formed legs and primitive lungs, ready to transition onto land. This myth was exploded in December, 1938 when a live Coelacanth was caught in a fisherman's net off the eastern coast of South Africa. It is now known that the natives of the Comoro Islands had been catching and eating the fish for years.


It did not have half-formed legs or primitive lungs. It was simply a regular fish that people thought was extinct. Evolutionist claimed the 350 million-year-old Coelacanth evolved into animals with legs, feet, and lungs.

This not the case. We now see that the fish recently caught is exactly like the 350 million-year-old fossil. It did not evolve at all.

The Coelacanth is a star witness against the false theory of evolution. After 350 million years, the fish still doesn't have a leg to stand on.
The Archaeopteryx fossil was herald by evolutionists as a significant transitional missing link. The fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in southern Germany in 1861 and has been debated ever since.

The dinosaur creature appears to be a reptile with bird characteristics of wings and feathers. It had the skeleton of a small dinosaur with a tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws.

The owners of the property discovered six fossils of which only two had feathers. This inconsistency smells of fraud from the beginning. Upon close examination the feathers appear to be identical to modern chicken feathers.

The Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers have now been declared forgeries by scientists. "Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement" -
The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), with its duck bill and webbed feet, is a unique Australian animal. It and the two species of echidna are the only monotremes or egg-laying mammals to be found on earth.

The marsupials (mammals with pouches, e.g. kangaroos) and eutherians (placental mammals that give birth to well-developed young, e.g. humans) both give birth to live young.

The monotremes have lower body temperatures than other mammals and have legs which extend out, then vertically below them. These features, together with their egg-laying ability, are more like that of a lizard than a mammal. Platypus are readily identified by their streamlined body, webbed feet, broad tail, and characteristic muzzle or bill which is soft and pliable.
The Platypus males have spurs on their hind feet that deliver a poisonous venom like a snake. A Platypus sting is powerful enough to make people sick and kill a dog.

The Platypus of Australia has characteristics of many species but certainly is not the missing link to all of them. In fact, it is not a link to any of them. The Platypus has made a joke of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his unproven theory of natural selection.
This is all solely scientific evidence which proves evolution is flawed and incorrect. You guys told me you did not want to see info from the bible as you deem it is flawed but this is a hindrance to me as it is the ultimate truth and is the only book that is absolute.

- - - Post Merge - - -

These are ten examples of evidence found in the bible.

. The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true - "He hangs the earth on nothing."

2. The Bible specifies the perfect dimensions for a stable water vessel (Genesis 6:15). Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, God told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago.

3. Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!


4. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.

5. Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that God places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator's presence - "in Your presence is fullness of joy" (Psalm 16:11).

6. Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.

7. The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

8. Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be "parted" and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago - God declared this four millennia ago.

9. Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars - that's a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

10. Animal and plant extinction explained (Jeremiah 12:4; Hosea 4:3). According to evolution, occasionally we should witness a new kind springing into existence. Yet, this has never been observed. On the contrary, as Scripture explains, since the curse on all creation, we observe death and extinction (Romans 8:20-22).

- - - Post Merge - - -

I am going to tell you right now this is not solely evidence from me it is research. Some of this is my work.
 
Last edited:

Ok well I'm no expert on evolution but I find it fascinating so will do my best to answer this.
Eskimos don't have fur to keep warm because they didn't need to evolve fur. Humans have the advantage in that we're intelligent - we can make clothes and fires to keep us warm. Therefore, no one is dying from cold, therefore there's no selection pressure.
Black skin is not the opposite of what evolution would want - black skin is much better for living in a hot country. It's not often you see a black person get sunburnt is it? Whereas white people can often get sunburnt.

I too, became a bit skeptical of evolution when I thought about the wings thing. But I did some reading, and apparently insects might have developed 'flapping' gills to help them skim across the water, and over time these developed into wings.
Dinosaurs may have started developing downy feathers to keep them warm, and then might have started to use the aerodynamic properties of feathers to run faster. They might have also used their tiny stub wings to help them run uphill or help them climb trees - many birds still use this technique.
 
Ok well I'm no expert on evolution but I find it fascinating so will do my best to answer this.
Eskimos don't have fur to keep warm because they didn't need to evolve fur. Humans have the advantage in that we're intelligent - we can make clothes and fires to keep us warm. Therefore, no one is dying from cold, therefore there's no selection pressure.
Black skin is not the opposite of what evolution would want - black skin is much better for living in a hot country. It's not often you see a black person get sunburnt is it? Whereas white people can often get sunburnt.

I too, became a bit skeptical of evolution when I thought about the wings thing. But I did some reading, and apparently insects might have developed 'flapping' gills to help them skim across the water, and over time these developed into wings.
Dinosaurs may have started developing downy feathers to keep them warm, and then might have started to use the aerodynamic properties of feathers to run faster. They might have also used their tiny stub wings to help them run uphill or help them climb trees - many birds still use this technique.

Will try to answer these but first do you have any remarks on how the Coelacanth and the platypus correlates with evolution?

- - - Post Merge - - -

Big Bang:
It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing. Proponents of the big bang theory say that such criticism is unwarranted for two reasons. The first is that the big bang doesn't address the creation of the universe, but rather the evolution of it. The other reason is that since the laws of science break down as you approach the creation of the universe, there's no reason to believe the first law of thermodynamics would apply.

Some critics say that the formation of stars and galaxies violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time. But if you view the early universe as completely homogeneous and isotropic, then the current universe shows signs of obeying the law of entropy.

Some astrophysicists and cosmologists argue that scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Some cite the absence of exotic cosmic bodies that should have been the product of the big bang according to the theory.

The early inflationary period of the big bang appears to violate the rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Proponents have a few different responses to this criticism. One is that at the start of the big bang, the theory of relativity didn't apply. As a result, there was no issue with traveling faster than the speed of light. Another related response is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light, as space falls outside the domain of the theory of gravity.

There are several alternative models that attempt to explain the development of the universe, though none of them have as wide an acceptance as the big bang theory:

The steady-state model of the universe suggests the universe always had and will always have the same density. The theory reconciles the apparent evidence that the universe is expanding by suggesting that the universe generates matter at a rate proportionate to the universe's rate of expansion.

The Ekpyrotic model suggests our universe is the result of a collision of two three-dimensional worlds on a hidden fourth dimension. It doesn't conflict with the big bang theory completely, as after a certain amount of time it aligns with the events described in the big bang theory.

The big bounce theory suggests our universe is one of a series of universes that first expand, then contract again. The cycle repeats after several billion years.

Plasma cosmology attempts to describe the universe in terms of the electrodynamic properties of the universe. Plasma is an ionized gas, which means it's a gas with free roaming electrons that can conduct electricity.
 
Back
Top