|
Post by Always on May 11, 2008 21:33:35 GMT 10
Every sociologist acknowledges the existence of certain social institutions such as family, church, and government. Sociologists differ, however, when describing the origin of these institutions and their relationship to the individual. This difference results from the assumptions inherent to the sociologist worldview.
The Christian views mankind as specially created in God's image, while atheistic worldviews see man as simply an emerging animal. ;D
|
|
|
Post by plorwaks on May 12, 2008 13:53:26 GMT 10
proof of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution...
|
|
migy
Moderator
moderator in his designated rooms
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by migy on May 12, 2008 16:05:26 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by leanne. on May 12, 2008 21:04:59 GMT 10
To talagang si plorwaks, ka seryoso nung thread eh waaaaah
|
|
|
Post by rafael on May 16, 2008 4:19:41 GMT 10
The Christian views mankind as specially created in God's image, while atheistic worldviews see man as simply an emerging animal. ;D Evolutionary theories have been used to answer questions about the origins of the universe, life, and man.Wether man came through evolution or creation,the argument lies on the first "created" man portrayed in simple minds as caucasian.
To reconsile Adam as the first man he should have the proper DNA to represent the whole race of man.What then is he?
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 19, 2008 18:17:33 GMT 10
Simple - a person with a human DNA Crick is very detailed on why our own DNA is very different from that of other animals
|
|
|
Post by rafael on May 19, 2008 22:12:03 GMT 10
DNA segments allow precise individual identification. I am not refering to animal versus human DNA as it iwas obviously stated.
According to Creationists, Adam was first created.
There was perhaps some partial evolution on other kinds of life, but it seems there was not at least any anatomic and morphological evolution for the human species therefore
.How can you reconsile him as the first man in relation to human species as white, black, yellow, red or brown?
. From the earliest hominids, as to neanderthal, or autralopithecus and other monkey-resembling stone- age humans and the rest which differ from an upright perfect human form?
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 20, 2008 20:27:36 GMT 10
"How can you reconsile him as the first man in relation to human species as white, black, yellow, red or brown?"
In previous years, most Christians could not be able to defend themselves to such querry; but now, it is so simple - because the experiment conducted by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase stated that DNA is a hereditary material. What does it mean? It means that if you bring a skinned gorilla to a doctor and ask what it is ... it will be a 100%certainty that the doctor will tell you that it is not of human DNA (re: CSI Las Vegas) in general
|
|
|
Post by rafael on May 23, 2008 2:41:08 GMT 10
I think you're lost .
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 24, 2008 12:47:08 GMT 10
it only shows that your way of thinking is antiquated Again, bring any piece of meat you want to your personal doctor or to whoever who has knowledge about DNA extraction and let him tell you what it is Better yet, if you could be able to improvise, bring a cut-up cadaver (one intended for dissection) and let your friend guess it ;D
Now, if Adam were a horse, do you think the writers of the Bible would write that the first man was a horse.
I mentioned names of scientists to start my defense and since you can not take the offensive of your stance, you are the one at lost here
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 24, 2008 16:37:56 GMT 10
And if you're still lost about the Whites, Black, Brown, Yellow et al., then try to research on the term "Ziggurat" not the one in Makati ok? But the one in the Bible I still remember this one and among others when I had one of my best debates against the very bests of Yehey Forum. At first they couldn't cripple me when they were atheists at first then later turned into being agnostics. I still remember the day when my beloved ninja girl was on my side training me to become a fine defender of the faith.
Anyway, to continue to the main concern of the very topic at hand, I would like to implore that one of the fundamental ways in which Christian sociology differs from the Humanist and Marxist approaches is Christianity's affirmation of individual free will and responsibility. While atheistic approaches, when consistent, believe that society determines man's consciousness and actions, Christianity describes man as a creaturewith the freedom to choose between right and wrong and to shape society
|
|
|
Post by rafael on May 29, 2008 5:15:24 GMT 10
And if you're still lost about the Whites, Black, Brown, Yellow et al., then try to research on the term "Ziggurat" not the one in Makati ok? But the one in the Bible I still remember this one and among others when I had one of my best debates against the very bests of Yehey Forum. At first they couldn't cripple me when they were atheists at first then later turned into being agnostics. I still remember the day when my beloved ninja girl was on my side training me to become a fine defender of the faith.
Anyway, to continue to the main concern of the very topic at hand, I would like to implore that one of the fundamental ways in which Christian sociology differs from the Humanist and Marxist approaches is Christianity's affirmation of individual free will and responsibility. While atheistic approaches, when consistent, believe that society determines man's consciousness and actions, Christianity describes man as a creaturewith the freedom to choose between right and wrong and to shape society
Man is a social being. Adam has to be brought out to identify him either as a man from God's image or from an ape-
The conflict is his appearance as weakly discussed donot conform to early primitive men studies found during the stone age.
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 29, 2008 17:31:06 GMT 10
I watched TFC a while ago and why the image of a 80's person was different in image from those of current ones? Fluffy hair just like a cotton candy and wearing slacks that look like a walis in the bottom Or better yet, why some jewish women don't shave their buhok sa kili-kili while the men have longer hair than women? More? Why Renaissance man different in looks compared to Big Boom Boys? Why?
They may look different but they have one thing in common they are all human. Of course, another thing is fashion with time Why do you think God did not give computers to Adam and Eve para mas mabilis ang ang takbo ng buhay? Kasi hindi nila mauunawaan
O'heto: Saan galing ang lahi ng mga Pilipino? Diba galing tayo sa mga Malayan Origin na ang average na taas natin ay 5'? E' baket ngayon ay tumataas ang mga Pilipino at an average height of 5'6"? Baket ang mga ninuno natin mga Pilipino ay ibang iba ang kanilang hugis ng mga mukha keysa sa ngayon?
Baket? ;D
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 30, 2008 0:25:47 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by linsi on May 30, 2008 0:31:54 GMT 10
Man is a social being. Adam has to be brought out to identify him either as a man from God's image or from an ape-
The conflict is his appearance as weakly discussed donot conform to early primitive men studies found during the stone age.
has anyone carefully studied about the veracity of the anthropology of man?
|
|
|
Post by rafael on May 30, 2008 1:35:54 GMT 10
That would mean one thing, that god, has created adam with a stooping posture, thick wide forehead with an image close next to an ape.
This is a shallow escape.
|
|
|
Post by leanne. on May 30, 2008 2:24:57 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by leanne. on May 30, 2008 2:28:01 GMT 10
That would mean one thing, that god, has created adam with a stooping posture, thick wide forehead with an image close next to an ape.
This is a shallow escape.
Kung magkaganyan e di mukhang unggoy pala si Adam
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 30, 2008 13:10:26 GMT 10
"This is a shallow escape."How could it be shallow if it's the truth Tell us, why is it that the DNA of an ape is very different than that of a human? Again, why is it that the origin of the Filipinos - the Malays who looked like apes have different DNAs than that of real apes? Why is that so? ;D
Please don't escape with a shallow response this time
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 30, 2008 13:46:41 GMT 10
Leanne, When God created us in His own image, it simply meant progressive creatin, we are not yet in the last phase of that creation. We are just like the universe which keeps on expanding from that one boom. That bang is liken to the creation of Adam and Eve which is still in chaos which needs harmonizing.
Btw, sabi ng iba si Manny Pacquiao looked like an unggoy pero baket ang DNA niya ang layo sa monkey
|
|
|
Post by Always on May 30, 2008 13:56:10 GMT 10
Omt, my beloved ninja girl always prayed for me everytime I tackled the hordes of agnostics and atheists alike. At first akala niya lalampasuin ako dun ng mga matatalino ng Yehey noon. My courage, confidence, and guidance from Ninja Girl & Parekoy made the difference
|
|
|
Post by leanne. on Jun 3, 2008 1:20:10 GMT 10
Leanne, When God created us in His own image, it simply meant progressive creatin, we are not yet in the last phase of that creation. We are just like the universe which keeps on expanding from that one boom. That bang is liken to the creation of Adam and Eve which is still in chaos which needs harmonizing.
Btw, sabi ng iba si Manny Pacquiao looked like an unggoy pero baket ang DNA niya ang layo sa monkey Ganun? Yung big bang parang paeho din sa creation? nalilito na akoooo kasi ang big bang parang pag sabog samantalang ang creation ay maganda ang pagkakagawa.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 8, 2008 5:46:31 GMT 10
One tries to equate the big bang = creation .
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 9, 2008 14:47:26 GMT 10
Only if you're reading your Bible; that way, you'll be able to find out that there are two (2) stories of creation specified. And one cannot equates without the other The term equate does not necessarily mean equals to it BUT as an "analogous" into one
|
|
|
Post by peng on Jun 11, 2008 13:19:09 GMT 10
Always, mahirap namang intindihin ang bibliya sa totoo lang yan nga pag binabasa ang bibliya para kang nagbabasa lang ng hindi naiintindihan. Paano yan. Tapos iba iba pa ang intindi.
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 12, 2008 0:03:14 GMT 10
Always, mahirap namang intindihin ang bibliya sa totoo lang yan nga pag binabasa ang bibliya para kang nagbabasa lang ng hindi naiintindihan. Paano yan. Tapos iba iba pa ang intindi.
Exactly that is the point.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 13, 2008 12:29:07 GMT 10
Kaya Peng kapag dimo maunawaan ang Bilbiliya ay hindi masamang magtanong sa mga mas nakakaunawa tulad ng mga Admins nating dito. Sa katunayan, mas nakakaunawa sila kesa sa akin dahil ako ay gusto matuto.
Minsan kasi, madali namang unawain kaso may mga taong selective ang kanilang pang-unawa. DATI AKONG ATHEIST at alam ni Linsi yan at sa dahil gusto kong malaman kong ano ba talaga ang buhay natin sa mundo ay hindi naging antiquated ang aking pag-iisip.
And that is exactly my point That's also the reason why I don't always leave questions unanswered just to show that I can defend my own ground
|
|
|
Post by rafael on Jun 17, 2008 1:05:04 GMT 10
O'heto: Saan galing ang lahi ng mga Pilipino? Diba galing tayo sa mga Malayan Origin na ang average na taas natin ay 5'? E' baket ngayon ay tumataas ang mga Pilipino at an average height of 5'6"? Baket ang mga ninuno natin mga Pilipino ay ibang iba ang kanilang hugis ng mga mukha keysa sa ngayon?
Baket? ;D
What are you trying to implore? Are you into paradigm of both evolution and creation? ? ? ? Your are trying to blend contradictions.
|
|
migy
Moderator
moderator in his designated rooms
Posts: 2,544
|
Post by migy on Jun 17, 2008 22:00:37 GMT 10
Hi Peng, pls. allow me to share lang! Before pareho tayo ng pananaw, parang ang hirap intindihin nga naman ng Bible, yun pala ang sikreto you have to accept first that Jesus had died for us in order to conquer death... hirap intindihin di ba? Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. so is the salvation... pag di mo siya binasa at inalam na yun palang tao pag wala si Christ sa kanya wala pa lang impact ang Word of God kase nga the Word is actually Jesus... The Word is Truth and it is Life, who gave us life? si Jesus Christ lang talaga nagbigay at nag sacrifice nito and God allowed this to happen because He wanted us all to be save... Bakit nga ba kailangan magbuwis ng dugo ang Lord Jesus...? Since all have sinned and fall short, not one is righteous, no not one as in no one.... Romans 3:10. Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23 sino ba ang Way... the title Word said that the way is Jesus, and sinabi din sa Word of God na Jesus is also the Truth and the Life, and no one can come to the Father except thru Him (JESUS CHRIST) ... John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. For me i prefer to believe and have Faith than to settle the score of not believing God at all... besides God will remain God and Men will remain human... men cannot change the World and cannot change life and cannot save souls... Only God... thru Christ our Lord. Imagine a World if all of us is god... so thus then concludes no one could ever have faith and believes anyway... not one will be a servant, imagine that... no one will work, not one can drive a car coz it's obvious! if all of us is god, everything we imagine can be done at the twinkling of an eye... i better stay with my Faith to my Living God than to seek the knowledge and intervention of men that we do not know if constructive or destructive. that is why, faith comes from you if you believe Him and without faith we cannot please God... Having Faith in the Triune God, believing God without seing Him is the Faith you can keep and not one can take it if you will not allow it to... Now choose one: don't believe God exists and wait for our final days in this world that we are not holding any assurance at all... or believe and have faith in God even if we cannot see Him but we feel and believed that the air we breathed comes from Him... that's faith! Science cannot explain that! Always, mahirap namang intindihin ang bibliya sa totoo lang yan nga pag binabasa ang bibliya para kang nagbabasa lang ng hindi naiintindihan. Paano yan. Tapos iba iba pa ang intindi.
|
|
|
Post by Always on Jun 18, 2008 18:58:58 GMT 10
O'heto: Saan galing ang lahi ng mga Pilipino? Diba galing tayo sa mga Malayan Origin na ang average na taas natin ay 5'? E' baket ngayon ay tumataas ang mga Pilipino at an average height of 5'6"? Baket ang mga ninuno natin mga Pilipino ay ibang iba ang kanilang hugis ng mga mukha keysa sa ngayon?
Baket? ;D
What are you trying to implore? Are you into paradigm of both evolution and creation? ? ? ? Your are trying to blend contradictions.
You are giving yourself away here Rafael You easily exposed what you really know by leaning from old shool paraphernalias of skepticism (which I also doubt). If you look closely on the details of Darwin's researches and studies in his book Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1st Edition written by himself, you'll be able to realize the true intention of his research which was discriminately manipulated by skeptics around the world just to prove a point (even though). They proved a point alright by dispoving their own basis of stance. Rather than having positive results for them, using evolution against creationism resulted into more problems for skeptics because they passed over on the knowledge that Darwin himself used Gnostism in the line of Hebraic notion in all of his research studies.
Contradictions you say? Not quite In fact, the study of Darwin's Evolution as he intially intended is modelled into the nature of God. Darwin believed in God; but, because of his Gnostic belief, he concluded that God is altogether removed from this world. He always believed that God is not personally involved in this world and this is clearly implicated in his question about the swallow.
This comes to mind:
a) The Bible did not start with Adam and Eve having computer and electricity; instead they were let out of the garden because of sin and to progress through labor b) Nakalagay sa Ecclesiastes 3:20 na
"All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again."
at sinabi din iyan ni Job sa 10:9
Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast MADE ME as a clay, and wilt thou bring me into dust again?"
at pati si Abraham sinabi din iyan bago parusahan ng Diyos ang Sodom na siya ay galing din sa "Lupa at Abo"
As you can see Rafael, if evolution came about due to the ground elements of Earth even before secular humanism has used it as a part of its doctrines, the Bible had already stated that the first man was created through a formation from elemental ground. Thus, Abraham and Job were the first God believers to admit to have came from dust and to dusk they'll return.
You can say that they were ebolosyunis kaso nga lang hindi cla mga atheists
Btw, try reading the princple of non-overlapping magisteriaor NOMA, then you'll be able to know why I can easily use the doctrines of skepticism against them just like you
|
|