Posted on 03/18/2013 8:14:29 AM PDT by EaglesNestHome
Advice: type slower then proof read.
To answer your question - Beliefs and faith are different from factual answers to the questions that were posed.
There is nothing wrong with beliefs and faith. We all have them in one form or another.
But no one in this world can answer those questions with facts.
They may think they have the answers, they may believe that their answers are more right than other answers, they may believe that their answers are the only right answers, but those are beliefs, they are not the factual answers.
Personally, I believe that Jesus Christ created me and everything else. But I cannot say for 100.00% certainty that this is exactly what happened, because I do not know.
[[But no one in this world can answer those questions with facts.]]
Actually yeah they can- it’s a fact that evolution is impossible- it’s a BELIEF that evolution happened DESPITE it beign impossible
Yes, evolutionism (molecules to man) is a belief system, dreamed up as a lame alternative to the obvious, self-evident truth of a Creator. We weren’t there, at the beginning, and from what I have read, those who attempt to recreate the formation of life are just fooling themselves—their experiments are necessarily tainted by the need for intelligent design, for one thing. For another thing, they can’t recreate “millions of years” of evolution; neither can man create something out of nothing.
I apologize for not posting for awhile; I had some work, school and especially family responsibilities to attend to.
Thanks again, everyone who has helped to answer these most important questions in life:
Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?
Yes, evolutionism (molecules to man) is a belief system, dreamed up as a lame alternative to the obvious, self-evident truth of a Creator. We weren’t there, at the beginning, and from what I have read, those who attempt to recreate the formation of life are just fooling themselves—their experiments are necessarily tainted by the need for intelligent design, for one thing. (What I mean by this, is that the scientist is designing the experiment—thus, the conditions are not random.) For another thing, they can’t recreate “millions of years” of evolution; neither can man create something out of nothing.
I apologize for not posting for awhile; I had some work, school and especially family responsibilities to attend to.
Thanks again, everyone who has helped to answer these most important questions in life:
Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?
I don’t believe in evolution.
It’s a theory, and to many others it seems to be a philosophy and a belief system.
It certainly does not answer the questions of why are we here, how did we get here and where are we going.
But attempting to answer a question by saying what is not the answer is not a factual answer to the question.
Those answers have proven to be elusive for a very long time now.
I see what you mean, but I think the question of evolution has come up as the only possible alternative to God being our Creator. So by process of elimination, if evolution is invalid, then that leaves God, as the answer to how we got here. That makes sense to me. To me, the Bible answers these questions clearly. What do you think?
I believe that the Bible is correct, and I have faith that it is correct, but as to whether or not it is absolute fact, I do not know.
But also when you say That makes sense to me. To me, the Bible answers these questions clearly, this statement is illustrative of personal belief and faith, because it may answer the questions clearly to you, but does it answer to the questions clearly to a person from Japan for instance?
Or India? or China? It seems to me that various beliefs and faiths are adopted by various people because they work for individuals in such a way to bring a deeper meaning and comfort to their lives, but they do not necessarily work for everyone on the face of this earth.
Yet the answer as to why are we here, how did we get here and where are we going would seemingly apply to every single person on the face of the earth.
It is also within the realm of all things possible that at some point in his history mankind was contacted by aliens, and if that is in fact the case, that would make many theories, beliefs and faiths erroneous because information was missing.
I'm not saying that it is the case, but it is possible.
What it all boils down to in the end is that the answers remain elusive, perhaps by design. From my position here on this earth at this time in history, it is beyond my ability to know the precise facts.
[[It certainly does not answer the questions of why are we here, how did we get here and where are we going.]]
I dissagree- when it can be shown that we are not just mindlessly evolved from inert chemicals and hwen it is shown that there is a definate need for a loving intelligent designer, it can be shown that the reason qwe are here is for the Glory of the One who created us in such a marvelous manner (yes, we have disease, death etc- but life is still a marvellous creation irregardless of the fact that we threw it back in God’s face by eatign the fruit)- God then goes on in His word to explain why we are here, why we were created, and what’s to becoem of us in the end- It’s not aq very deep subject- God explains it all very simply in His word-
[[their experiments are necessarily tainted by the need for intelligent design, for one thing. (What I mean by this, is that the scientist is designing the experiment—thus, the conditions are not random.)]]
They absolutely had to intelligently design environments, and to introduce artificially things that woudl neve3r occure naturally in roder to get the experiments to be even partially ‘succesful- without hteir intelligently designed parameters, and without htem playing God by supernaturally controlling every aspect of the experiment,s they defeasted theiro wn goals right from the outset-
Same with hte weasel algorithims that they claimed showe that mutations could result in NEW “non species specific information” tm- their claim was false- the FACT is that the suppsoedly randomness of the program was anythign but random and was manipulated and carefully controlled in order to come to certain conclusions abotu hteir preconcieved ideas of evolution
I beleive it was ken miller or perhaps another prominent evolutionist that tried to ‘disprove’ behe’s claim that life is irreducibly complex- and his argument was in an actual trial and I went through that argument by the scientist, and it was chockerblock full of impossible supernatural conditions and carefulyl controlled environments and introduced foreign genes and mutations under aertificial conditions that he should have been laughed right out of court- but amazingly the biased judge in the case sided with miller’s rediculous argument while dissallowing Behe’s much more natural explanation for the complexity- I also read the judge’s closing remarks and foudn to my astonishement that it was a word for word exact copy of a pre-prepared ‘closing argument’ by the ACLU- and it was very clear that this judge had NO business sitting over such an important case when he was so ignorant of the basic facts- He even bragged after the trial about his remarks which made many in the evolutionist’s camp cringe because it was so rediculous- but he went about gloating about his apparent misplaced confidence in himself and his decision-
I’m not sure how much you’re into the evolution vs creation debates- but if you check out miller’s (maybe it was dawkin’s) Argument for how ‘irreducibly complex systems “Could have arisen naturally without hte ne3ed ofr an intelligent designer” You will clearly see what I describbed above- The lengths he had to go to prove that blood clotting mechanisms in advanced creatures coudl have ‘arisen naturally’ were so comical that again, he shoudl have been laughed out of court- or aqt least been removed from the case for gross incompetence as pertained to the subject-
That is your faith and your belief system.
It is not necessarily precise fact.
I do believe you are confusing these.
You cannot prove what you are saying as absolute irrefutable fact, and neither can anyone else prove their theories, beliefs, faiths and religions as absolute irrefutable fact.
I am not criticizing your belief system or anyone else’s. Everyone has a belief system, what else are we supposed to do than try to figure these things out?
But it is within the realm of all things possible that you are wrong, therefore what you have said cannot be viewed as fact.
What you have stated is your belief and faith which are different from fact, as the factual answers to those questions remain elusive.
Kant can’t.
Just an observation - “We are like ants to God.”
Biblically, that isn’t the case at all. In fact, the hairs of your head are numbered. Matthew 6 is one of my favorite chapters of the Bible, and it is the antithesis of ‘we are like ants . . . ‘
For Christians, the ‘who’ question becomes sort of easy I guess: we are the manifestation and instrument of the will of God. Fearfully and wonderfully made, and all of that.
Clinically, the ‘where’ question becomes “Heaven” in the long term, but in the short term, it becomes “where He wants us to go”, but there is nothing easy or comforting in that answer.
I’m watching my kids discover their gifts right now. It’s a science so inexact that you can’t not wonder about God’s hand in it.
Religion colors the philosophical a great deal, I’m afraid.
There’s the old example of the Buddhist who witnesses a Tiger and her cub at the bottom of a cliff. The Tiger is injured and cannot care for the cub.
The buddhist, upon seeing this, throws himself from the cliff.
Hearing the reasons why this makes sense to a buddhist is interesting.
Normally, the way one would respond (humorously, or less so)to any direct inquiry as to one’s philosophy is as follows:
I. Kant.
I know!
It is disingenuous to say the least to claim you are asking a question which you need help with, and then state you already know the answer.
Maybe it's just a little lie, but it is a lie, and that seems to be a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.
This establishes a framework begging the question of God's existence, placing man before God.
Did you know that the meaning of "faith" and "belief" as used in Biblical Greek are the same word?
"Believe on the Lord Christ Jesus and thou shalt be saved", compared with "Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.", use the same word for faith/believe.
Now which system of epistemology is more veritable? One which is provided by God to man, or one used by man independent of God, attempting to analyze God and all worldly things?
The later system is sometimes referred to as the "Cosmic" system or worldly system.
KOSMOS in the Greek means an orderly system or world in contradistinction to CHAOS or disorder.
The Cosmic system, while very enticing, is discernible from the divine system through faith in Christ.
God.
Why are we here?
To know, love and serve God, so that we can be reasonably happy in this life,...
Where are we going?
And to be happy forever with Him in the next.
That's the short answer. 8-)
I understand that, but it cannot be proven to be a fact at this time by anyone is this world.
I’m not saying that it is not a fact, but it cannot be proven to be one, nor can any theory, belief or philosophy related to our purpose and origins.
It is possible that one or more of the currently known theories, beliefs, philosophies, or religious teachings is in fact precisely accurate. It is also possible that none of them are, and the answer is something that we missed or never had the necessary information to assemble as of yet.
What I have noticed with regard to this is that some believe their answer, which ever it may be, is the only possible explanation and that there is no other possible answer, and if someone does answer differently then they are engaging in something that needs to be frowned upon and discouraged.
For example, if an religious person proposes religious answers to these questions, then the atheist ridicules the religious person and the answers. Conversely, if the atheist provides evolution related answers, then a religious person will object on religious grounds.
From my standpoint, this seems like a behavior that humans have engaged in since they began, and that is attempting to control and influence the thoughts and actions of others. Humans seem to be more concerned with whether or not others believe as I believe as opposed to is what I believe actual reality.
So keeping this in mind, when I ask myself what is the true factual actual answer to the questions why are we here, how did we get here and where are we going, the only factual answer that I can come up with is that the precise answers are not known.
For my own part, I believe in the eternal soul of all living things. I believe that soul is a form of energy, spiritual energy, and that this energy is what gives each of us our unique identities, and by law it cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. I believe that spiritual energy came from Jesus Christ, whom I view as God, and that it will return to Him. I believe that upon death, this energy leaves our body and goes elsewhere. I believe that destination is Heaven.
I don’t usually put my beliefs in public, but I have done so in this case fully expecting someone to tell me that I am mistaken, and certainly that is possible, because I am just a man trying to understand what I am in something so grand that I simply cannot comprehend it.
[[That is your faith and your belief system It is not necessarily precise fact.]]
You are mistaken- I cited FACTS- not beleif- it is a mathematical FACT that even one mutation over billions of years can NOT add non species specific information into a species- it is a FACT that it is mathematically impossible for hte trillions of non species specific infrmation events NEEDED in order to move one species to another is not possible- not even remotely possible- it’s impossible- Don’t take my word for it- take hte word of many secualr scientists who convened in chicago not too long ago and came to this conclusion- Then read Demski and see that he too has coem to the same obvious conclusions-
It’s a FACT that evoltution violates natural laws- it’s a fact that evolution violates chemical laws, it’s a fact that evolution woudl have to violate the second law of thermodynamics - it is a fact that it was environmentally impossible to sustain any sort of environment for evolution EVEN IF evolution had miraculously overcome impossibilties in the first place-
On and on it goes with hte factual impossibilities of evolution- the whoel hypothesised process is doomed by facts right fro mthe beginning- the very begiinings of chemicals to protiens-
[[But it is within the realm of all things possible that you are wrong,]]
Mind explaining a little how nature coudl have overcoem these impossible odds and coudl have violated it’s own rules in order to brign forth the millions of species we have today?
Winning hte lottery is ‘not beyond hte realm of possibility”- Evoltuion IS beyond the realm of possibiltiy- winnign hte lottery is NOT impossible- it’s calculated as mathematically possible- it can happen- however the required trillions of changes needed to move one species to another disimiliar species is NOT possible- Even IF one mutation did happen to succesfully add information to sa species needed to beging a movement towards a different species- that is just one tiny impossible mistake in one single individual over what? billions of years? You NEED trillions of such impossible additions via ‘mistakes by nature’ (even IF they coudkl ADD non species specific information- which they can’t- ONLY lateral gene transference can do such a thing- and species are protected by MANY layersw of defence to prevent such invasive foreign information from occuring)
You are holdign onto a ‘hope’ (I guess) that evolution ‘was not beyond the realm of possibility’ when all the evidence shows infact that it was be3yond the realm of ANY possibiltiy- when hte the fact of the matter is that it is FAR more plausible, and FAR more reasonable with farm ore evidence to back it up, that an itnelligent designer personally designed all the myriad creatures we have today ‘in the beginning’- There is ample evidence that species are irreducibly complex and that their irreducible complexity waqs so compelx and itnricate and so reliant on all the vital parts beign present all at once- that only an itnelligent designer could have even imagiend such a marvelous creation and assembled it and gave it life-
And if such a creation WAS infact created by a Loving Creator, then our reason for being here on earth is pretty clear- because it pleased the3 Creator to bring us forth- the ‘beleif’ (of secualrists’ comes in when they decide that they have no need of their creator, nor any obligation to the Creator- and htey BELIEVE they are nothign but purposeless molecules to man evolution experiemnts by nature DESPITE the overwhelming evidence agaisnt such a hypothesis-
The circumstantial evidence is substantial enough to point to the NEED for an intelligent designer- the evidence AGAINST evolution is pretty clear- it IS beyond hope- beyond the realm of possibilties- and again- don’t beleive me, listen to it straight from secular scientists who concluded it was impossible, and lsiten to current sicentist who also show that it’;s impossible-
It’s good to have hope- but it’s not so good to hope in somethign that is naturally, biologically, chemically, mathematically impossible- it’s far better to look at the actual evidence and to begin to see that there was a marvelously designed purpose behind every species- including us- Don’t just wave your hand and pretend thsoe impossibilties I mentioned don’t matter- they absoltuely DO matter- even just ONE impossibiltiy mentioned is enough to defeat the whole hypothesis right fro mthe star- but hte fact is that htere are MANY impossibiltites associated with evoltuion and the evolutionsit’s ‘models of evolution’ showing suppsoed ‘nice clean lines of evolution’ from oen species to the next are bogus when you actually dig deep into the FACTS- Their ‘msot compelte line of species evoltution’ shwoing ‘similiarl ooking species’ crawlign fro mthe ocean and then living off land was and still IS a VERYU DECEITFUL rendering of the Actual scpeices which lived durign htose times- the textbooks show a nice neat ‘progression’ of features and show drawings of species makign it look like the closest ‘relatives (accordign to them) are very similiar in size0- BUT when you investigate the actual FACT- the ‘closest’ two psecies are NOT similiar in size, infact one is rat sized, whiel hte other is hippo sized-
and htis is their ‘msot complete transitional example’? Wow! just stunning! They had to INTENTIONALLY deceive the unsuspecting public in order to make it appear that they had a near complete neat little transitional species line- but htey infacvt did NOT (and by the way- the reptile that suppsoedly crawled out onto land was NOT able to support it’s weight on the flippers ESPITE their books showign that it could have- The FACTS show (and hwich they quietly later admitted without makign it publically known) was that the species only rarely squirmed onto land then back itno the ocean because they woudl suffocate because they coudl NOT hold themselves off the ground because of their weak fluipper structures- jjust like livign species do today
There coems a poitn where one does not have to rely on faith ion order to beleive their own eyes- and when the FACTS stand on their own account- and evoltuion is one of those areas- The FACTS simply do not support the case- and the FACTS DO support the need for an intelligent designer- Infact, it takes FAITH to beleive evoltution happened despite the overwhelming insurmountable and impossible odds agaisnt it whiel it only takes looking at the FACTS to show that God created thwe world just like He said- He even said that man has ALL the proof it needs all around him so that htere won’t be ANY excuse for not beleivign in Him and in His creation-
Listen, I’ve no idea why you’ve written all this to me.
I have stated that I do not believe in evolution. I said it was a theory, and I do not think that it is a valid theory.
I believe God created the universe and everything in it, but I cannot prove that is a fact.
It is my belief and my faith, and I do not care if it makes sense to others, I do not care if others agree with me, or if they mock me and call me stupid or anything else.
[[I have stated that I do not believe in evolution. I said it was a theory, and I do not think that it is a valid theory.]]
My mistake- I thought you had mentioned you weren’t sure, and that you felt there was no way of knowing- I pointed out htere is a way of knowing and that there are facts that bak it up- we don’t have to simply rely on faith- God Himself gave us all the proof we need to come to a strong beyond reasonable doubt conclusion that there is only one way life began-
[[It is my belief and my faith, and I do not care if it makes sense to others, I do not care if others agree with me, or if they mock me and call me stupid or anything else.]]
I never called you stupid or mocked your faith- I’m simply statign that when peopel question you, you DO have the facts to support creation on your side- There are two scientific professiosn that study life and complexity and everythign related to it called ‘creation science’ and ‘Intelligent Design Science’ and both have a wealth of information that backs up the NEED for an intelligent Designer AND for a Creator- and they prove it through the many disciplines of science ie macro/microbiology, chemical science, mathematics etc etc-
[[I believe God created the universe and everything in it, but I cannot prove that is a fact.]]
Yes you can- Giod even stated in His word that He gave you all the tools and information necessary to prove the NEED for an Intelligent Designer/Creator- AND you also have all the tools information needed to show that evoltuion is an impossible hypothesis- You have the facts on your side if you care to pursue them
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.