LIES THAT LIE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
“….it’s either God made the world, or the world made itself…you have no other choice.”
Alright guys, good day!
Hmm, yeah I hope your good at reading at the title of this penning. It’s time to talk bout things that concerns me, you and everything including the very dust particle that your foot is at rest right now.
This is all about the “Theory of Evolution,” yeah the things that is in your head right now, and the religious thoughts (creation) asserted in the Holy Bible. Each of them has something to say – one of them is right or wrong. Perhaps, you’ll gonna see who was that.
Lastly, my pure thoughts here will be patterned to that of the elaboration of a Youtube blogger known by the name “VenomFangX” which he himself inspired his thoughts on some prominent speakers also.
Ok. We’re here. Actually, what you will be tabs on (if you’ll be patient) is actually a story of a “frog turns to a prince.” What?! A unison of science and fairy tale? Yeah, I can even see your brows tossing up now. The story could actually be prototype of the Theory Of Evolution. If you’ve been a once-upon-a-time fan of a story of the “Frog Prince,” then the theory of evolution has its own version. But, not with a kiss of a charming princess, rather a power incantation of “…billion and millions of years ago…”
When I was a kid, as I remember, we have stories in the form of “Alamat” on how land and water were hurl on space and made finally into earth. Or how the heaven made mass of lands by throwing chunks of earth to the seas when they were actually quarrelling. At least that’s how alamat told us to be. But, when we come into the open, there are two revolutionary claims and exegesis on how really the world came to be. We happen to call them “humanism” on the scientific world view and “creationism” on the religious world view.
The Theory Of Evolution – it rings a bell – it reminds you of a single person, if I have to presume that’s what you are thinking right now – Charles Darwin, right? But, no, no, no. Darwin is just a progenitor of the pro-biological stage of evolution or the development and developed organism out of non-living one. You’ll find out later that the term evolution is not just secluded to Darwin’s theory but is a long and tricky word. Clearly, Darwin doesn’t only own the Theory of Evolution but largely credited to every scientific opinions.
The Humanist world view starts by saying “wow all things great and small the Big Bang made them all.” While the Creationist commenced and says, “wow all things great and small God made them all.” Two world views in one subject – origin of everything. One must be right, one must be wrong. This is tough. We have to prove evolution is right, for religion to be wrong. Or religion to be right, for evolution to be wrong. One must be black for one to be white or either.
On the side of evolution, there are questions that would give us a second thought:
1. What is my worth and who am I? If evolution is true, you don’t actually worth anything. Your just a bunch of amoeba or something that is washed upon the shores, your nothing important. In fact since you are a polluter of the environment and a self-destructive individual, the more we can get rid of you, the better. It mustn’t hurt you since that is a normal evolutionary thinking.
2. Where did I come from? If evolution is true, you actually came from nothing and would just naturally go back to nothing. I guess the first question is enough to let you know that you’re nothing but just an effect of a cosmic flatulent billions of years ago – by mere accident. No more, no less. And that doesn’t’ give you much thinking of what will happen when you die, you know where you’re going to. Don’t expect evolution to give you further meaning to life here.
3. Why am I here, what am I doing here? If evolution is true, you’ll not be doing anything but seek pleasure – animalistic pleasure. That is how nature works with or in animals, and you came from animals, right? According to evolution you, the apes and the bananas are just one and of the same lineage. Secondly, you’re actually here on earth because there is no reason at all. If it feels good as well, then rob a bank, kill anybody you hate, rape anybody you like, smuggle government funds, make life miserable to anybody or do it as you maybe pleased. After all, you’ll gonna die someday and you might have missed the rest of your life. There is no meaning to life, right?!
4. Where am I going when I die? If evolution is true, umm, you know you came from a bacteria, and in most cases you would probably be recycled into a bacteria again or into an earthworm or amoeba or anything – or just nothing.
Now lets’s turn the canvass to the other side, and it said, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” (Genesis 1:1). You know that we can have a very different set of response to these questions if creation is therefor true. Even if you are not fond (as nobody is) of skimming few pages of the Bible, at least you have the imperatives and notion of how the bible states the creation. As of now let’s devote a little more time on it.
Genesis 3:1 said, “…and the Serpent said unto the woman, yea hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Doubt is one of the enemies of faith, that’s why Satan ends his statement in question mark to shake Eve’s faith to doubt, as what Eve did. Sadly, that seed of doubt still reverberates up to the present generation. Further the Serpent said, “…ye shall not surely die,” (Genesis 3:4). Now the devil’s getting decisive, tough and cunning. His deceptive venom is now slowly eating up every fiber of Eve’s faithful faculty. The devil’s giving us an impression that God is a liar. The next thing out of the devil’s mouth is that, “…ye shall not surely die,” (Genesis 3:5).
The last statement of the devil is actually a pillar of evolution. It did not started out of Darwin’s mouth, Satan did it first which he instituted at he garden of Eden through the instrumentality of Eve. And I guess, the final blow on Eve’s wobbling faith is when Satan said in Genesis 3:3, “…ye shall be as gods.”
From that departure you’ll see the difference now. Ok, boys and girls we started as an amoeba, a primordial soap from a cosmic burp or whatever, then to an earthworm and then we are getting better and stronger and eventually we are becoming like superman, or a god – Satan is right. The Bible states that we started as smart, intelligent individuals but ever since lost them because of sin. Evolution on the other hand said, that we started stupid, short and yucky and from that we’re just getting stronger and better by stringing of traits of whatever genetic complexity.
Satan adds, “I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High,”(Isaiah 14:13-14). Satan wants to be God. And he is looking for ways to establish his reign. Nonetheless, the job is not available for him to be God. So he hates God, but he can’t do anything to God. The smartest way that he could do is turn to us, he hates us in behalf of God. The Bible said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…,” (Genesis 1:26). You are made in the image and likeness of God. Every time Satan see you, you always reminds him of God. No wonder Satan hates you so much. And he is looking for the finest and the best way to pervert that lovely image of God in us, no other than to let us claim we came from animals.
Satan have a nice time on his couch laughing to his belly to individuals who have bitten the bait of evolution, ’cause he doesn’t believe it but he is glad that you do.
Evolution has long been taking its toll on every human consciousness. It is not only contained on thick and hard bound encyclicals but to every textbooks that we have in high school or even elementary. I remember our history teacher explaining to us how homo sapiens, erectus, Java man and such and such came to a fuller human beings like us now. And a VS grade is so hard won. Evolution is infiltrating every textbooks in the world, seeding every young individual’s unguarded consciousness. Well, what better way is their to do it but found it on young minds. The earlier the seeding, the firmer the evolutionary root to take arrest of every one’s mental faculty.
Perhaps, few of those lies are in the textbooks, connecting to what once Adolph Hitler said, “if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough the people will believe it.” He adds, “the people are more likely to believe in a big lies than a small ones.” Bear in mind how big the things we are talking about. What can lies give, but another bunch of lies.
Teachers are taught to teach that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. One textbook says, “…earth has changed a lot since it’s formation 4.5 billion years ago and so on and so forth.” Try verifying these things in your own textbooks. Teachers themselves have been the prototype of the propagation of these things. The problem is that, do the teachers know that or they just think that? Because if they say that they know that, then they must have been there 4.5 billion years ago. Obviously, they only think that since they could just have been an active or passive recipient of some evolutionary teachings some decades ago.
One inconsistencies of the theory of evolution is pointed out to be teaching that the earth is 10,000 years old during the 1800 and then by the early 1900 it was thought to be around 2 billion years old and now at dawn of the year 2000 it was thought to be 4.5 billion years old. If you have to stop and think about it, you’ll know that the earth is getting a daredevil aging process millions of years per year, and that’s simply ridiculous.
Evolution as a Tricky Word
Evolution contains at least six definition. Darwin’s methodology is one of them.
Cosmic Evolution: Simply the origin of time, space and matter through the instrumentality of the ever famous Big Bang theory. So far it has not yet been proven. It is still a scientific guesswork and there is no way of confirming them true.
Chemical Evolution: This is their explanation of the origin of the higher elements from hydrogen. Which is not proven either since it’s (still) illogical to obtain life from non-living elements.
Stellar and Planetary Evolution: This simply is the daughter of the Big Bang theory. The theory of how the stars and the planets are being formed. Still not proven logically. Nobody has seen a star or a planet being formed. They are pure fantasy and speculation arrayed together with your fairy tale series books.
Organic Evolution: The origin of life out of non-living materials. Otherwise known as Biogenesis. Which has been proven wrong couple of centuries ago. Spontaneous generation is impossible since there is no way of getting life out of barren and non-living materials.
Macro Evolution: Darwin’s greatest hits! The changing from one kind of animal to another. Of course not proven either. We have never seen a human being gave birth to a monkey or monkey gave birth to a human. We’ve never seen a snake gave birth to anything but a snake. We’ve never seen a cat gave birth to anything but a cat. We’ve never seen a mango that produced anything but a mango itself. Farmers always expect to harvest a banana every time they plant a banana, and they do.
Micro Evolution: Which is proven at last. You pick a tiger, a cheetah or lion but they are still family of cats, in other words they belong to the same kind. But a mid-air consideration has to be considered. Since one of them might have been created separately from the others as is being pictured in the Biblical creation model.
There are in fact scientists who have been breeding and making some experiments on some common houseflies and hoping to find out when a housefly will eventually not be a housefly and turn into something else. But they are still making houseflies after all these years.
Animals, as we have learn from our evolutionary academic slot, change kinds. So from a frog one turns to a prince, though not by a magical kiss but an evolutionary incantation, “…billions and billions of years ago." Just as the revolutionary thought that we all came from monkeys and therefore look like monkeys.
The Biblical point-of-view simply explains, “…the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind…V.12…the living creature after his kind…V24.” The word kind is 10 times repeated in relation to the creation in the Bible. When we say kind, you can easily describe a tiger from a jaguar or a cheetah from a lion. So you might say, this is a lion kind, a cheetah kind, a jaguar kind and a tiger kind and so on. You have to admit it’s more easier to logically think and classify that a tiger came from a tiger family rather than a tiger came from a lion or jaguar family which was a cause of evolutionary events.
So if you admitted, if I don’t believe in evolution what should I believe? My foreword says, “….it’s either God made the world, or the world made itself…you have no other choice.” I myself I have no other choice, which is more worth believing or more logical to think? Something must always exist, since the second proposition is totally impossible. NOTHING can only create NOTHING. If you’ll try to check your textbook on how the universe came to be, they'll tell you exactly these word, “…in the realm of the universe nothing really means nothing (wow, it’s science yet this is philosophically deep)…however this is theorized that from the state of nothingness, the universe begun in a gigantic explosion 16.5 billion years ago….” Wow, I thought I was just reading a classic fairy tale when I was just a kid. You see that! From the STATE OF NOTHINGNESS the universe existed?! A pre-schooler can without further introspection tell you that nothing can only create nothing. And yet, they still have the guts to wound a hard bound books concerning this stuff – if everything came from nothing. Isn’t it that after they have uttered the word “nothing,” evolution must end there, and so with all their books and whatsoever they kept feeding us? At this juncture, they’re teaching you fantasy – not science.
Ask someone who’s making a critical study on this matter and they’ll tell one and same thing. Science cannot further unto this realm because it’s outside of their little bubble. Their excuse is to tell you that from nothingness something must have existed – think about that! Science is as important as the air we breath. We all know how it did alleviated physical pains of this fallen world. Just one thing, science would sometimes seems to let us gobble tank-full of "laughing gas" which draw strange grins on our faces. Nevertheless, bear in mind, we are not hating science here. Everybody still love science. I still love science the way I dreamt as a kid to fly to the moon one day. And I till love that dreaming, and I'm looking forward to that.
☺☺☺
Nagsanga na pala ang topic mo?
Submitted by pauline hernandez on September 9, 2008 - 11:49am.
Ang comment ko ay para sa partikular na blog na ito hindi mo naman agad sinabi na topics unlimited ang gusto mong reaction eh... o sige kung talagang gusto nyong ituloy ang topic na ito sa ibang direksyon rerespetuhin ko yan...
tungkol sa suicide bomber mo kapatid aba eh sino ba namang matinong tao ang may respeto sa isang terorista? hindi ko gustong makipagtalo kaya ok na sa akin ano man an maging kasagutan mo dito
magaganda ang mga blogs mo nag-eenjoy akong magbasa kahit hindi sa lahat ng panahon at pagkakataon ay sumasang-ayon ako.
magandang usapan...
Submitted by dyeppri on September 9, 2008 - 11:55am.
magandang usapan ngunit mukhang mapupunta sa kawalan?!ahihi.
............................................................................................................
"I wouldn't mind if you were nice to me once in a blue moon."
pahabol lang ha
Submitted by pauline hernandez on September 9, 2008 - 12:12pm.
Isang pahabol lang mr joemaya sabi mo yung sagot ni Ms. Tilla Trinidad falsifies my statement about respect? tanong ko lang din yun po bang panuntunan nyo sa Negosyo/Trabaho eh yun din ang panuntunan nyo sa Pag-big, sa relasyon sa pamilya? mukang magkakalabo-labo ang pangyayayri at magugulo ang buhay nyo pag ganun ang panuntunan na iisa sa lahat ng aspeto ng buhay hindi ba? ganoon din na maaring tama na respetuhin ko ang pagkakaiba sa opinyon natin tungkol sa pulitika (halimbawa lang) pero kung ikaw ay magsasabi na pasasabugin mo ang bahay ng mga sumasalungat sa kalakaran ng gobyerno eh teka muna hindi ko marerespeto ang paniniwala mong pasabugin ang bahay ng mga inosente yung malakanyang na lang ang pasabugin mo mabuti pa (eto naman ay halimbawa lang so walang pasasabugin, malakanyang man o bahay nino man ok) sana malinaw. Ingat po parati at God bless.
This issue is non-debatable
Submitted by balintuna on September 9, 2008 - 4:35pm.
This issue is non-debatable at all! Kahit pag bali-baliktarin mo man ang mundo o mga librong binasa mo at kung ano man teorya ang sabihin mo, KUNG ang taong bumasa sa mga sinulat mo ay may pinaniniwalaang gumawa sa mundo nya na hindi uma-ayon sa mga sinasabi mo then wala ka ng magagawa, at base pa sa mga nababasa ko and ayaw mo talaga magpatalo and you keep on defending what you believe then I might say na dapat hindi ka na lang sana nag post kung ganyan ka din lang at dapat sinarili mo na lng yan. Para kasing sinasabi mo na kasi na dapat ikaw ang paniwalaan at hindi na sa PINANINIWALAAN NAMEN. Tanong? May nakakita ba kung paano tayo nag-evolve? If yes sino? Anong basehan nila ung hugis at anyo ng unggoy? Sino ang makakapag patunay na galing tayo sa unggoy? Si Charles Darwin ba? Na siyang pinagmamalaki mo? I don’t want to say something about spirituality here, kasi ibang level na yun, at ayaw ko nmn ipasok ang paniniwala ko sa taong sarado nmn ang isip at puso para sa mas malalim na idelohiya.
Ang nangyayari na dito joemaya hindi na factual ung sagot mo dahil nagiging pilosopo ka na. I think hindi naman philosopher si Manong Charles! Di ba? I think it’s be better to be smart rather than to become someone wisdom full (akala alam lahat pero wala ng sense) kaya nga ako I’d rather choose to have a common sense rather than having high IQ turn point wala ng sense kausap. I guess makakakita ka ng pwede mong ibato sa akin at hindi na ako magtataka para dun.
Respect what we believe and we will respect what you believe! (ang respeto sabi nga ni Bea Saw hindi basta binibigay yan kundi ini earned!)
Regards,
Sanjie
Thanks, thanks, thanks!
Submitted by joemaya123 on September 9, 2008 - 6:10pm.
Yeah, you have a point, as I have pointed out to recent comments that I have recieved, just read them.
Hmmm, wala naman akong sinabing 'di ko sila nirerespeto. May binastos na ba ako dito. If you'll try to read all those comments, they contained question marks --- which need to be answered. So, sinasagot ko lang naman mga tanong nila. Gaya ngayon ng comment mo, tadtad na naman ng tanong. It would be a neglect on my part kung papabayaan ko yan, while I was the one who posted this issue.
Bal, I never said this word that I'm proud of him: "Tanong? May nakakita ba kung paano tayo nag-evolve? If yes sino? Anong basehan nila ung hugis at anyo ng unggoy? Sino ang makakapag patunay na galing tayo sa unggoy? Si Charles Darwin ba? Na siyang pinagmamalaki mo? He's (Darwin) even the subject of my criticism.
So, having high IQ means walang sense kausap. Therefore, walang kuwentang kausap si Albert Eintein dahil mataas IQ nya.
And why don't you speak about your spirituality. Is my "sarcasm" greater than your spirituality, why should you let your spirituality be drowned by my arguments? Go for it bal. If everything else fails, your spirituality will be the last thing that you will be proud of. :-)
joemaya
see?
Submitted by balintuna on September 9, 2008 - 6:35pm.
joe it was implied kasi.. the way you convey your thoughts, your aggressive answers! If you will just read your answers between the lines you'll know what I'm saying, but i can't blame you for that kasi cguro ganyan ka talaga at kung yun ang sinabi mo then ok na.!
joe, that's not my point. your making things complicated.! ang sabi ko lng gusto ko makausap mga taong marunong umintindi and that's my definition of common sense. pwera n lng kung iba ung definition mo? newei para humaba ano nga definition mo dun para mag meet tayo half way? and Paano nmn napasok si AE dito, did i mention him? i know AE for a superb IQ pero hindi namn dapat xa ipasok sa usapan na to db?, hay!
My sprituality.. nothing INCOMPARABLE! i do what i believe! Any violent reaction?
Sanjie
Opps, oopps!
Submitted by joemaya123 on September 9, 2008 - 7:51pm.
Hands up! No further reaction! I never thought that would be that uneasy. Sorry.
Hey, is that your girl? Hmmm, love her, she's big deal in your success. In every man's success, behind it is a woman, am I right?! ha ha ha
Peace bal, apir!
God Bless!
joemaya
yeah!
Submitted by balintuna on September 10, 2008 - 8:46am.
JOe, success lies on our hand!.
Yeah that's toni weve been together for 5 years now and going strong..
Joe i never thought that you give that too easy but nevertheless it's good to know that your capable of seeing both side of the coins. you know what, this is great i do appreciate it! i love the converasations. i love you for being witty! (hmmm i dont mean something ok!)
Sanjie
teka, parang may na miss ako
Submitted by Tilla Trinidad on September 9, 2008 - 8:00pm.
Teka, teka ano? ito ang sinulat mo:
So, having high IQ means walang sense kausap. Therefore, walang kuwentang kausap si Albert Eintein dahil mataas IQ nya.
Ano? wala siyang kwentang kausap? bakit? at, ano naman ang relasyon ng iq at ni Einstein dito?parang bigla mo na siyang binanggit.
nahuhubaran na ng maskara ang matatalino!
Submitted by Rom on September 10, 2008 - 7:32am.
Hahaha! naliligaw na ata si joe, nagpapakita na sa likod ng mga "matatalinong" salita niya ang tunay na mukha ng isipan nya. ayan kasi kinakailangan pang magkunwaring matalino samantalang sa simpleng pag iisip at pagpapahayag lamang nasasalamin ang pagkakaintindihan. Kung talagang matalino tayo sa pag-iisip sana naisip natin ang tamang salita na magpapaintindi sa punto natin hindi ang sanga sangang usapan na nagpapalala lamang sa sitwasyon. Okey masaya, may usapan, may interaction pero at the end of the day ang tanong: naintindihan kaya ang punto ko? o nakipag debate lang ako?
walang kwenta ang pagsasalita kung di ito naibahagi ng tama. kaya nga sabi ko mainam na magbulay-bulay na lang kaysa sa sumuka ng sumuka ng mga teoryang wala namang saysay sa ikaliligtas ng tao laban sa pagkabulok ng mundo.
salamat po
Rom
ahh... ganon pala. Bal tama
Submitted by Tilla Trinidad on September 10, 2008 - 9:50am.
ahh... ganon pala. Bal tama naman ata itong si Joe. nagiging walang kwentang kausapin ang matalino sa iba kasi hindi nila sila kayang abutin. masyadong malayo ang pagiisip nila. naiintindihan ko yon. ako naman, basta't hindi niya ako binabastos, okay lang kung iba ang paniniwala niya. kung plano niya akong patayin dahil sa kanyang paniniwala, ipaglalaban ko ang buhay ko. kung makita ko man na walang oras para lumaban, eh di magdadasal na lang ako. o? problem solved!
nye?
Submitted by balintuna on September 10, 2008 - 10:49am.
Tilla did i mention joe na mali ung mga sinasabi nya? i think wala ako nabanggit!
We are all entitled to our own oipinion but be sure na responsable tayo sa mga salitang ating gagamitin. MInsan kasi hinid ntin alam nakakasakit na tayo n hindi natin nalalaman.
Sanjie
nye?
Submitted by balintuna on September 10, 2008 - 10:49am.
Tilla did i mention joe na mali ung mga sinasabi nya? i think wala ako nabanggit!
We are all entitled to our own oipinion but be sure na responsable tayo sa mga salitang ating gagamitin. MInsan kasi hinid ntin alam nakakasakit na tayo n hindi natin nalalaman.
Sanjie
IQ IQ IQ where are you?
Submitted by joemaya123 on September 10, 2008 - 10:33am.
Bakit sino ba mataas ang IQ, ikaw o si Einstein? Alangan naman ikaw isulat ko dito? :-)
Tilla, we are just making examples for the topic to be easily grasp and understand. Masyado mo namang dinidibdib eh, :-)
I and Bal are speaking about men or man with high IQ, and we have no other way around kundi gumawa ng example since si Einstein mataas IQ nya, at sinabi mo pa, Einstein really has something to do with our topic. Ikaw, gusto mo? :-)
Peace Till, wag ka nang magalit!
Best Regards!
joemaya
sigh...
Submitted by madmaximus on December 4, 2008 - 11:10pm.
my 'god,' here are some faqs. 1. evolution deals with the origin of the species, NOT LIFE ITSELF! abiogenisis ang nagc2ver dun. ang big bang ay sa astronomy. s geology naman ang age ng earth. 2. purpose of life? scientific question b yn? tinatalakay b ng science yn? di b more on philosophy or religion n yan? 3.
talagang hndi tayo monkeys, we, humans and apes share a common ancestor. same with cats, lions, and the other members of the cat family
Ok, ok, ok,
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 7, 2008 - 9:13pm.
Ok here we go madmax (excuse me) :->
You said "evolution deals with the origin of the species, NOT LIFE ITSELF!" So where does life begun? I presume you mean life trancendentally (meaning religious life, love life, moral life etc...) or biological life such as evolution itself. So where should you bet? I'm quite sure that before morality, love and the likes came, it's evolution first since who would do them? Clarify what kind of life do you mean?
"ang big bang ay sa astronomy. s geology naman ang age ng earth." Boi, they're corollary to how everything came into being. Say, big bang. It actually explains that from the gigantic explosion and millions and millions of years after a primordial soup (as evolutionist call it) was created upon rocks, because according to them, it rained. Geology? Alright, evolution uses the terms geologic period, geological strata, geological time gap and whatever, which connects to each and every other thoughts. It could be big bang, abiogenesis etc.. weeew! I guess you really have to re-read my post, ok.
What more? "purpose of life? scientific question b yn? tinatalakay b ng science yn? di b more on philosophy or religion n yan?" It's not scientific, but it questions science itself. I post both scientific and religious thoughts so that you yourself can balance two things - humanism and creationism. You really have to re-read my post, buddy.
Another "talagang hndi tayo monkeys, we, humans and apes share a common ancestor. same with cats, lions, and the other members of the cat family" Let me know what do you mean by "common." Do you mean, KINDS or SPECIES. They are two different things. Because if you mean kind then you could be partly right and wrong. Right because it coudl be lion kind, jaguar kind, ape kind and human kind,right. Wrong because, it could be that lions and chettas can potentially inter-breed and make new kind. When you mean species then you are an evolutionist kicked by the ass with this blog. Species would tell you that it is a sharing of common traits or a transfer of one genetic material to the other: apes to humans. So, where do you think you came from?
joemaya
sabi na nga ba.
Submitted by madmaximus on December 9, 2008 - 12:50am.
tignan mo nga. tignin ko kailangan mo mag wikipedia at encarta encyclodedia. kahit kulitin mo ang isang paleontologist(fossils) at scientist sa field ng genetics(ito dalawa na to ay ang mga so called evolutionist, mga scientist behind evolution)
hindi ka nila masasagot kasi nga ABIOGENISIS nga ang bbhala dun. WALA SILANG PAKIALAM kung paano nagbuo ang LIFE. ganun din kung kinulit mo sila about the big bang dahil astronomer's job na yun. gets?
sabi na nga ba.
Submitted by madmaximus on December 9, 2008 - 12:50am.
tignan mo nga. tignin ko kailangan mo mag wikipedia at encarta encyclodedia. kahit kulitin mo ang isang paleontologist(fossils) at scientist sa field ng genetics(ito dalawa na to ay ang mga so called evolutionist, mga scientist behind evolution)
hindi ka nila masasagot kasi nga ABIOGENISIS nga ang bbhala dun. WALA SILANG PAKIALAM kung paano nagbuo ang LIFE. ganun din kung kinulit mo sila about the big bang dahil astronomer's job na yun. gets?
I guess you have to watch this
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 9, 2008 - 10:32am.
Masyadong mahaba na kung i-explain ko pa. I guess you really have to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw
Dito mo mahahagip kung paano nagkakaisa yung Paleontologist, Abiogenisist, evolutionist at iba pang scientists para sa iisang layunin - life!
Anyway di mo na kailangan panuurin lahat, kasi magahigit dalawang oras din to, sa simula pa lang ng debate you can see kung paano ini-explain ng isang professor ang unity ng mga sciences. Kabaliktaran doon sa sinasabi mong walang pakialaman or walang pakialam kung paano nabuo ang life. :->
And if you don't have time. You must know that everybody wonders about life and so therefore search for the meaning of life, paleontologist ka man, geologist, evolutionist...whatever!
joemaya
WHAT THE!?!
Submitted by madmaximus on December 11, 2008 - 11:29am.
kent Hovind? yung creationist "scientist" na nakulong dahil sa mga kaso nya?(titignan ko mamaya ang lahat tungkol sa kanya sa wikipedia, matatagal ko na sya'ng naririnig at nababasa pero hindi ko lubusang kilala)pero OK, idesregard na natin yung kaso nya, pero hindi nya ako mapaniwala lalo na kung tatalakayin nya kung nagyari nga talaga ang Noah's Ark(ang fav subject ko) which is kahit ang mga kaklase ko'ng noong college ay hindi din naniniwala(obvious naman) akala ko national geographic or discovery channel ang ibibigay mo sa akin.
at base nga pala sa binigay mo at sa mga nabasa ko, malamang hindi ka catholic, (catholics are THEISTIC EVOLUTIONIST, infact noong 1950, naglabas ang pope ng pahayag na hindi na sila makikialam sa mga scientific research{after nun napahiya sila kay galileo} etc. at tatangapin na nila ang evolution dahil after all HINDI NAMAN NITO SINASABI KUNG PAANO NAGSIMULA ANG BUHAY basta nakaroon lang ng evolution sa mga living things, thats it. isa pa, the VATICAN itself ay may mga SCIENTIST. pero hanggang ngayon ay magulo pa rin kung saan ba talaga sila lulugar-http://www.slate.com/id/2122506/-) at since obvious naman na christian ka, malamang isa ka'ng protestant katulad ko, well atleast sa ayon sa papeles, at since protestant ka, it's either isa kang old earth creationist o young earth creationist.
btw, "And if you don't have time. You must know that everybody wonders about life and so therefore search for the meaning of life, paleontologist ka man, geologist, evolutionist...whatever!"
bakit? porket SCIENTIST ka na e ATHEIST ka na? ano man ang paniniwala ng isang scientist ay labas na yun sa ginagawa o rineresearch nya. oo they wonder, they awe, they react just like us pero hindi ibig sabihin e isasama nya yun sa trinatrabaho nila pwera na lang kung hindi ka na man talaga scientist at talaga malabo lang talaga sayo ang ibig sabihin ng SCIENCE.
age of the earth
Submitted by madmaximus on December 5, 2008 - 2:37am.
4. age of the earth, bakit 10,000 years old lng noong 1800? two reasons: lack of tools and proper knowledge in the past and religion. in fact, base sa bible ang10,000 years old earth na pinaniniwalaan pa since the middle ages. anyway, natural lang sa science ang mag-correct ng mali. nakatala yan sa scientific method.
another ok
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 7, 2008 - 9:32pm.
1800. If you read carefully the blog that I have posted, that conflict came from a book - I mean text books. Most probably, you yourself own one when you where in high school or college, whatever. What we question is the inconsistencies these books brought. The age of the earth is like this in this book, but different on the other 3 or 5 books with the same label of curriculum. So if you are a good student, you would ask, "which is which?"
So, when do we start believing in science? You said,"anyway, natural lang sa science ang mag-correct ng mali. nakatala yan sa scientific method." So kung natural naman pala, hindi rin ba natural na questionin ko ang mga findings nila, regardless if it's right or wrong? Because at this present hightech equipment who are we to say that they are absolutely believeable, I mean they won't get wrong anymore.
joemaya
old textbooks anyone?
Submitted by madmaximus on December 9, 2008 - 12:30am.
una, clue sabi ng isang techno guy. double n ang alam natin kung ikumpara sa alam natin nung 1998. syempre, iuupdate natin ang textbooks natin. two, 'ability to suspend judgement,' nasa scientific method yan, for short, hanggang walang concrete evidence, walang final answer. ikatlo, hightech na nga tayo, pero i doesn't mean na alam na natin lahat. ikaapat, bawal ang supernatural na explaination sa science. that's what i mean
old textbooks anyone?
Submitted by madmaximus on December 9, 2008 - 12:30am.
una, clue sabi ng isang techno guy. double n ang alam natin kung ikumpara sa alam natin nung 1998. syempre, iuupdate natin ang textbooks natin. two, 'ability to suspend judgement,' nasa scientific method yan, for short, hanggang walang concrete evidence, walang final answer. ikatlo, hightech na nga tayo, pero i doesn't mean na alam na natin lahat. ikaapat, bawal ang supernatural na explaination sa science. that's what i mean
Ok suspend
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 9, 2008 - 10:10am.
I don't know if talagang na do-double na yung knowledge natin. Because if you can see, their are lots of machines thinking for humans, instead of humans thinking themselves - computers.
Tungkol naman doon sa sinasabi mong 'ability to suspend judgement' yeah, it is very much scientific. So kung suspend naman pala, di rin ba ako excuse na isuspend ko rin ang paniniwala ko sa mga pag-aaral nila at sa resulta ng pag-aaral nila? Total hindi pa naman pala sure yung mga sinasabi nila eh, di ba pati sila sinususpend din paniniwala nila sa kanilang ginagawa, di ba? Tama, kasi ang katutuhanan ngayon pueding kasinungalingan na bukas.
So kung ganun yung reasoning mo, are you trying to tell me na obligado akong paniwalaan sila, evolutionist man, paleontologist, genetisist or whatever?
Hindi rin pa posibleng mali din yung evolution? So, kung mali yung evolution pueding mali din yung ibang sciences?
Parang ganun na nga. Di ba?
joemaya
BINGO!!!
Submitted by madmaximus on December 11, 2008 - 10:53am.
YUP! may nasabi ka ding TAMA. oo, posible na mafalsify ang evolution at iba pa'ng theory(ex. string theory at multiverse theory{mga karibal ng "BIG BANG"} Germ theory of disease, Theory of Gravity, Theory of Plate Tectonics, Hollow Earth, theory of spontaneous at Geocentric Theory{ang huling tatlo ang disproven na}) icheck mo kaya ang definition scientific theory, science itself, at ang scientific method( yung dalawa ay napag-aralan natin noon high school di ba?) pero hindi ibig sabihin ay obligado ka o isusupend mo ang mga brain cells mo at maging gulay o damong ligaw ka na lang.
Kung ano man ang theories ngayon ay yun na ang best explanation natin SA NGAYON, hanggang wala pa'ng concrete evidence nagfafalsify dito o nagpapatunay dito ay magiging theory pa rin to. Ewan ko kung "mapropromote" ang theories as laws dahil A SCIENTIFIC THEORY EXPLAINS a LAW DESCRIBES.(mga germans gan ng DWTV, bakit tinawag nyo ng LAW OF RELATIVITY, porket na out of sync lang ang mga satellites e evidence na para gawing law ang theory < hehehe wala lang trip lang)
clueless
Submitted by madmaximus on December 5, 2008 - 8:41pm.
walang kaalam-alam ang gumawa ng blog na ito kung ano ang evolution at kung paano ito gumagana. binabanatan ng blog
ang evo ng walang proper knowledge tungkol dito, kahit yung scope ng evolution mismo ay namisunderstood(evolution deals with the origin of the species, hindi ng life o ng universe o kahit ang morality ng tao). para s akin, isa itong statement ng isang tao na pinagpipilitan na nkikialam ang science sa kanilang diyos o relihiyon.
Ok again
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 7, 2008 - 9:47pm.
I may not fully get into touch with the evolutionary field, since I'm not a scientist myself nor an evolutionist, and never will. But rest assured, I have read a lot of this topic and view or watched a lot of this topic, before I posted a blog. These Ideas that I have posted came from evolutionist and creationist themselves. Yun nga lang paraphrasing na ginawa ko para di mapuno ng cridets nila yung blog ko, na for sure 'di nyo naman babasahin.
So, I guess I have to excuse myself from what you said "walang kaalam-alam ang gumawa ng blog na ito." As long as it is true, wherever and from whomever it came from - it remains a truth. Kumbaga di ko na kailangan maging doktor para masabi ko na uminum ka ng gamot para gumaling ka, and yet totoo na pag uminum ka ng gamot gagaling ka. O di kaya'y 'di na kailangan ng doktor na magkasakit ng kanser para magamot nya yung taong may cancer - knowledge lang ang kailangan pare.
joemaya
pareho tayo
Submitted by madmaximus on December 11, 2008 - 11:30am.
oo, pareho tayo, hindi din ako isang scientist and mahilig din ako magbasa ng mga articles/topics/debates about this subject, Katunayan kelan lang ay nagbasa yahoo answers about sa literal interpretations ng noah's ark at sabihin natin "debate" sa pagiging science daw ng intelligent design na noon 2005 ay naruled-out na hindi science. pero kung ano man ang nabasa mo ay hindi pa rin sapat dahil hangang ngayon ay HINDI mo ALAM o WALA ka naman talagang IDEA kung PAANO NAGWOWORK ang EVOLUTION. ang punto ko lang ay panay tira mo sa EVOLUTION e wala ka naman pa lang alam dito! paano ko nasabi? example na yung about sa "origin of the species" na halatang clueless ka? anyway siguro hindi mo din alam kung gaano talaga kadami ang prehistoric animals? try mo yung list ng "prehistoric(galit ang mga creationist sa word na ito) Mammals(mammals na lang muna)" kung hindi mo alam, puro na lang kasi dinosaurs ang alam ng mga creationist. isa pang example ang pagtira ma so microevolution na karamihan naman ng creationist ay accepted, not to mention ginagamit pa ito ng mga creation "scientist". why? try mo isearch, hindi mo ba alam na OBSERVABLE yun? especially sa mga sakit at mga pest(ex. Bird flu at bagong strains ng TB, lamok(lalo na yung recent research sa singapore) "super weeds"(salamat sa GMO at HERBICIDES). for short, parang panay tira/panunukso/panlalait sa isang tao na hindi mo pa la kilala at doon mo lang nakita. that my point
sya nga pala, pasensya na sa mga delay sa post at mga halatang "condense" ko na post. Cellphone lang kasi ang gamit ko kaya madami ako limitations, not to mention napakahirap mag post dahil minsan ayaw talagang magpost. (im using a PC right now_
Isa akong atheist
Submitted by j luna on December 8, 2008 - 10:02am.
Di ko papatulan ang thread na ito dahil wala namang progresibong mangyayari sa akin at sa lipunan at kahit isulat ko ang nasa utak ko, di naman ako kikita. Magl-log out na lang ako at magtitingin ng porn site.
Ang tao ba ay pagkakamali ng diyos, o ang diyos ba ay pagkakamali ng tao?
-Nietzsche
Welcome to the jungle
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 8, 2008 - 10:16am.
Welcome to the jungle jluna! 
joemaya
ONE last comment
Submitted by madmaximus on December 11, 2008 - 11:51am.
Ok, siguro sapat na ang panggugulo ko sa BLOG mo, PEACE! pasensya na at naipon lahat ng "inis" ko nung nagbasa ko sa yahoo answers dahil na din sa mga HARD-CORE FANS na literal na paniniwala sa NOAH's ARK(kaya ikaw ang nainis ko). nilabas ko lang lahat. pero hindi ko pa rin binabawi yung sinabi ko about sa pagkakaalam mo sa evolution which is hindi sa mababaw, talagang out of this world or talagang hindi mo alam.
at about sa choices kung about sa its either ginawa ng christian god ang mundo o ang ginawa ng universe ang sarili nya. actually, ok, assuming tayo talaga ay "Created," madami tayong choices, DAAN-DAAN baka nga libo pa, hindi lang naman ang BIBLE ang may creation story not to mention Creationist themselves ay may iba't ibang version kung paano nilikha ang mundo. so its a matter of faith(walang BLIND FAITH ha, redundant yun) kung ano ang paniniwalaan mo, ang tanong na lang ay alin ba ang scientific sa mga ito.
Sya nga pa la, Ok lang questionin ang senya as long na alam mo ang tinatanong mo at kung scientific ba ito in the first place, katulad nga ang sinasabi ni EINSTEINCHEN ng "Tommorow Today" - "its important to never stop asking question" That's it, PEACE!
I enjoyed it.
Submitted by joemaya123 on December 22, 2008 - 5:15pm.
Geee, salamat pare for faithfully commenting on my blog. I never thought it'll get this far.
Anyway just a clear-cut here, we're getting too far from getting a nice concession. We're just keep on circling around the bush. So just want to know what you really believed.
Did God made the world or the world made itself? Is it possible that anybody/anything could have just existed without a Creator?
Those questions are the crux/central concern of my blog, any answer to those, I will know what you believe.
Salamat po!
joemaya
Naku, facepalm kita. Kent Hovind desciple ka pala
Submitted by emancoy on September 30, 2009 - 11:38am.
sa una, your entire blog shows Kent Hovind written all over it, the same Kent Hovind who was convicted for fraud and jailed in texas.
YOur a creationists, unfortunately, I would have to tell you that you were lied to by whom ever fed your distorted version of science and evolution. Mali ka na maraming types of evolution, such as cosmic evolution ect.
Evolution is in the relm of biology that explains the diversity of life by common descent. The evidence for it is overwhelming and confirmed by the different methodologies from different disciplines of science.
a short advice, just watch on youtube, AronRa "foundational falsehoods of creationism" and Thunderf00t "why do people laugh at creationists"
Napakahaba ng thread sa
Submitted by Tantizm on September 30, 2009 - 12:12pm.
Napakahaba ng thread sa paksang ito.
Alam nyo ang usaping ito ay matagal nang pinagtatalunan matapos lalangin ang tao at mag-exist ang organismo ni Darwin. Si Darwin lang ang pormal na nagsulat ng theory of evolution. Pero hindi naman sa kanya nangaling ang ideyang ito.Ayon kasalukuyang pananaliksik ay hiniram nya lang ang ideyang ito kay Thomas Malthus.
Hindi dapat pinagtatalunan ang anumang teorya ng paglikha dahil ito ay relativism. Kapag ayaw magpatalo papasok sa Egoistic. At kung magpapasabog pa ng opinyon kahit maksakit ng iba, papasok naman ito sa Utalitarianism.
Kaya ang akin ay akin, ang sa'yo ang para sa'yo. Magiging akin lang ang sa'yo kung tatanggapin mo ito. Magiging sa'yo lang ang sa akin kung tatanggapin mo rin. Kaya't ang paggalang ng sa'yo at sa akin ay para rin sa atin.
"Bago ka mangarap...maghubad ka muna"
pahabol
Submitted by emancoy on September 30, 2009 - 3:51pm.
there is no such thing as cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution. lahat yan is outside the scope of biological evolution at mga gawa gawa lang ng mga creationists, isa sa mga promotor ay si Kent Hovind ng america.
Ang mga misunderstanding mo ay understandable lalo na madali talagang mapaniwala pag wala kang proper background sa tunay na science. Nakaka awa na nga yung mga americanong creatinists na distorted ang pagkakilala sa science nila at nagiging katawa tawa sila sa mundo, eto naman mga pinoy na makikisawsaw sa mali ng ibang bansa.
I respect the fact that you find comfort and solace to your religion, and christianity - like all religion is rigid and fixed, and imposses their ancient writings as the truth without question, bounded by faith and no need for proof or evidence, and even if overwhelming evidence showed that the primitive views in the bible are all wrong. example, world is flat. In science, it is ever changing and is based on observable and repeatable evidences. Nagbabago ang science,
at present ang "Evolution" - theory lang naman yan sabi nila, FYI, a scientific theory is made up of observable FACTS confirming the theory. It is actually the Fact of evolutions existance, just as valid as the theory of gravity as the fact of gravity's existance.
Pero yung gusto nilang ipalit na Intelligent design ng mga creationists ay wala evidence or proof other than what is said in the bible. That is why it failed as a hypothesis
and again, please I beg you to watch the videos I have recommended. I would like to add youtube channels, cdk007, DonExodus2, dprjones, Extandodo sites that explained why the creationist Intelligent design is utterly wrong. At every topic you have made, they have already answered.
pahabol din :)
Submitted by hansler on September 30, 2009 - 9:09pm.
haba na nito ah, aabot na ng october. hehe
Just some questions lang po. Kailangan ba na laging may simula ang lahat? Hindi ba pwedeng may mga bagay na walang pinagsimulan? ex. the eternity of the universe.
May nabasa ako dati sa internet abt a concept that god is omnipotent supreme entity and a question: If god is omnipotent, can god create an entity (or concept) that is/can be superior than god himself? if so, then he is not omnipotent supreme entity anymore.
yun lang. :)
hindi mo naman iniintindihan
hindi mo naman iniintindihin ang sinasabi ko eh. Sabi ko, hindi ko maiisip yan dahil wala ng oras para magdadalawang isip. wala akong pake kung ano sinabi ni pauline sayo basta't na iintindihan mo ang sinasabi ko. patay na ako. amen. talaga naman ito oo. iho, masyado na ata yang pagaaral mo na hindi mo na naririnig ang sinasabi ng iba. bahala ka sa buhay mo.