- TS TS
- #342
O kung ikaw may umabot sa kaliwanagan ng lahat. Napagtanto na wala naman talaga diyos, e nasayo nayon kung mananatili ka paring maniniwala. Pero eto lang masasabi ko, mas magiging masaya ka sa pananampalataya kahit sino man sya. Higit iyon sa nararamdaman ng iba.
Combination po kasi yan ng good and evil. Meaning kahit ang mali ay pwede nating matutunan, iyan ang dahilan kung bakit prone ang tao sa kasalanan. Pero kung knowledge of good lang, I think there’s no way para makagawa ng kasalanan sa Diyos ang tao.
Sagot: God in the Bible.
The root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.”
Meaning kung may wisdom or knowledge ang tao certainly hindi ito na adopt ng tao sa mga animal or plant or any microorganism. Dahil both Bible and Science ay agree na hindi tao ang unang nagkaroon ng buhay sa mundo, kanino nakuha ng tao ang karunungan? Only from God. Kaya naniniwala ako na God exist at kaya't ang science ay nageexist dahil din kay God.
Another strong evidence that God exist.
Science Confirms a Creator
Science confirms the Law of Biogenesis: “life only comes from pre-existing life.” This is exactly what the Bible has said all along: – “In the beginning was the Word… the Word was God…In him was life…” (John 1:1–4, NIV)
The Bible states that the living God is the source of life on earth. This is in perfect agreement with the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, the most scientific statement you can make about the origin of life is “In the beginning, God…”
Evolution and “Stuff”
When it comes to the theory of evolution, there are two major problems that have not been resolved by scientific evidence. The first problem is the “origin of life” issue. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-living stuff. The third article in this series titled Science and the Origin of Life demonstrated how this idea is scientifically impossible. Scientific experiments confirm that life only comes from pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, it was concluded that it takes God (a pre-existing living being) to originate life on earth.
But that is not the only problem for the theory of evolution. The theory goes on to assume that living organisms have the ability for unlimited change. Or, to put it another way, once you have something living, like the first amoeba, then it can change over time into something totally different, like a man. This is called “macro-evolution”.
But this “amoeba to man” theory has a major flaw. Think of it this way: a man has a lot more “stuff” than an amoeba, right? Stuff like hair, toes, ear wax, a circulatory system, brains, eyeballs, sweat, etc., etc., etc. So to go from a one-celled organism to something like a human, that little amoeba has to add more “stuff”. Somehow, somewhere, at sometime new and different “stuff” has to come on the scene to make this little amoeba guy progress toward manhood.
Discovering the Laws of Genetics
In the 1860’s, a Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, performed careful experiments on garden peas and discovered the patterns of heredity. This was later verified by Thomas Morgan in the early 1900s. Morgan found that heredity was located in the genetic makeup of DNA contained in every living cell. Experiments lead to discoveries about the scientific laws of genetics. These genetic laws govern the amount and kinds of change that is possible in plants and animals.
Thousands of experiments have been performed to verify how genetic laws operate. Artificial breeding has been applied to all types of plants and animals, from corn to cows. What have scientists discovered? Controlled breeding produces sweeter corn and cows that give more milk, but it never produces a different kind of plant or animal.
Or consider the dog family. Extensive breeding has produced a great variety of dogs, ranging from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua. But the offspring continue to be dogs. No new kind of animal has emerged. We have never been able to breed a dog with “new and improved” features, like feathers or gills. In other words, no new “stuff” has ever been produced. And if there is no new stuff, then there is no macro-evolution.
But science has discovered something else. If a variety of different dogs were let loose in Wyoming and left to “do their own thing”, after several generations the total population would revert back to a common stock. They would all start to look the same! This means there is a conserving quality built into the genetic material which insures that the species remain within certain limits.
This accumulation of scientific evidence has lead one scientist to remark, “Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.”
Years of experimentation have verified what the Laws of Genetics hold true: “You don’t get new stuff from genetic variation.” And no new stuff means no evolution!
But evolutionists say, “Hold it, we have an ace up our sleeve. Mutations can cause variations that lead to new stuff in the offspring. And given enough time, these small changes can take an amoeba all the way up to a man.” A high school biology textbook even says: “Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and thus, evolve over time.” 3
But there is a fly in this evolutionary ointment. Mutations in genetic structure add nothing new to the offspring. Mutations only rearrange the stuff that is already there. Experiments done with fruit flies produced the following result: fruit flies with larger bodies, fruit flies with smaller bodies, fruit flies that couldn’t fly, blind fruit flies and dead fruit flies.
The experiment started with fruit flies and ended with weak, sickly, mutated fruit flies. No new kind of insect developed, just mutated fruit flies. No new “stuff” as added. The stuff that was already there was just rearranged or lost! These micro-changes do not add up over time to macro-stuff.
Remember, for evolution to take place, you have to add new stuff. NO NEW STUFF MEANS NO EVOLUTION.
Science confirms what we know to be true: plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. And this is exactly what the Bible has said all along. (See Genesis 1:12 & 25) So based on the best scientific evidence, God is necessary for the creation of the abundant variety of life on planet earth. This is the only view that is consistent with the facts.
Which Worldview Is Correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview against naturalistic atheism (the worldview that controls most origins research). When our research is based upon biblical truths about the past, we find that our interpretations of the biological and geological facts make sense of what we see in the real world, whereas evolutionary interpretations don’t really fit what we see.
Let’s look at an example. The Bible says that God created distinct groups of animals “after their kind” (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct groups, or kinds. Creationists postulate that our creative God placed phenomenal variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their belief system requires.
rageragerage
Addict
science pa rin, kasi science ang gumagawa ng progress sa ating civilazation. walang internet kung hindi sa science bro.
- TS TS
- #346
Haba ng sinabi mo boss, bat di mo nalang patanayan ang yung paniniwala ng hindi gumagamit ng bibliya?Sagot: God in the Bible.
The root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.”
Meaning kung may wisdom or knowledge ang tao certainly hindi ito na adopt ng tao sa mga animal or plant or any microorganism. Dahil both Bible and Science ay agree na hindi tao ang unang nagkaroon ng buhay sa mundo, kanino nakuha ng tao ang karunungan? Only from God. Kaya naniniwala ako na God exist at kaya't ang science ay nageexist dahil din kay God.
Another strong evidence that God exist.
Science Confirms a Creator
Science confirms the Law of Biogenesis: “life only comes from pre-existing life.” This is exactly what the Bible has said all along: – “In the beginning was the Word… the Word was God…In him was life…” (John 1:1–4, NIV)
The Bible states that the living God is the source of life on earth. This is in perfect agreement with the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, the most scientific statement you can make about the origin of life is “In the beginning, God…”
Evolution and “Stuff”
When it comes to the theory of evolution, there are two major problems that have not been resolved by scientific evidence. The first problem is the “origin of life” issue. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-living stuff. The third article in this series titled Science and the Origin of Life demonstrated how this idea is scientifically impossible. Scientific experiments confirm that life only comes from pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, it was concluded that it takes God (a pre-existing living being) to originate life on earth.
But that is not the only problem for the theory of evolution. The theory goes on to assume that living organisms have the ability for unlimited change. Or, to put it another way, once you have something living, like the first amoeba, then it can change over time into something totally different, like a man. This is called “macro-evolution”.
But this “amoeba to man” theory has a major flaw. Think of it this way: a man has a lot more “stuff” than an amoeba, right? Stuff like hair, toes, ear wax, a circulatory system, brains, eyeballs, sweat, etc., etc., etc. So to go from a one-celled organism to something like a human, that little amoeba has to add more “stuff”. Somehow, somewhere, at sometime new and different “stuff” has to come on the scene to make this little amoeba guy progress toward manhood.
Discovering the Laws of Genetics
In the 1860’s, a Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, performed careful experiments on garden peas and discovered the patterns of heredity. This was later verified by Thomas Morgan in the early 1900s. Morgan found that heredity was located in the genetic makeup of DNA contained in every living cell. Experiments lead to discoveries about the scientific laws of genetics. These genetic laws govern the amount and kinds of change that is possible in plants and animals.
Thousands of experiments have been performed to verify how genetic laws operate. Artificial breeding has been applied to all types of plants and animals, from corn to cows. What have scientists discovered? Controlled breeding produces sweeter corn and cows that give more milk, but it never produces a different kind of plant or animal.
Or consider the dog family. Extensive breeding has produced a great variety of dogs, ranging from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua. But the offspring continue to be dogs. No new kind of animal has emerged. We have never been able to breed a dog with “new and improved” features, like feathers or gills. In other words, no new “stuff” has ever been produced. And if there is no new stuff, then there is no macro-evolution.
But science has discovered something else. If a variety of different dogs were let loose in Wyoming and left to “do their own thing”, after several generations the total population would revert back to a common stock. They would all start to look the same! This means there is a conserving quality built into the genetic material which insures that the species remain within certain limits.
This accumulation of scientific evidence has lead one scientist to remark, “Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.”
Years of experimentation have verified what the Laws of Genetics hold true: “You don’t get new stuff from genetic variation.” And no new stuff means no evolution!
But evolutionists say, “Hold it, we have an ace up our sleeve. Mutations can cause variations that lead to new stuff in the offspring. And given enough time, these small changes can take an amoeba all the way up to a man.” A high school biology textbook even says: “Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and thus, evolve over time.” 3
But there is a fly in this evolutionary ointment. Mutations in genetic structure add nothing new to the offspring. Mutations only rearrange the stuff that is already there. Experiments done with fruit flies produced the following result: fruit flies with larger bodies, fruit flies with smaller bodies, fruit flies that couldn’t fly, blind fruit flies and dead fruit flies.
The experiment started with fruit flies and ended with weak, sickly, mutated fruit flies. No new kind of insect developed, just mutated fruit flies. No new “stuff” as added. The stuff that was already there was just rearranged or lost! These micro-changes do not add up over time to macro-stuff.
Remember, for evolution to take place, you have to add new stuff. NO NEW STUFF MEANS NO EVOLUTION.
Science confirms what we know to be true: plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. And this is exactly what the Bible has said all along. (See Genesis 1:12 & 25) So based on the best scientific evidence, God is necessary for the creation of the abundant variety of life on planet earth. This is the only view that is consistent with the facts.
Which Worldview Is Correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview against naturalistic atheism (the worldview that controls most origins research). When our research is based upon biblical truths about the past, we find that our interpretations of the biological and geological facts make sense of what we see in the real world, whereas evolutionary interpretations don’t really fit what we see.
Let’s look at an example. The Bible says that God created distinct groups of animals “after their kind” (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct groups, or kinds. Creationists postulate that our creative God placed phenomenal variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their belief system requires.
Hahaha ibig sabihin daw na agreeable both sa bible at sa science na may micro evolution nga for each kinds, at napatunayan nga ng siyensya yan, pero ang proof na mayroong macro evolution ay imposible mangyari dahil katanga.han (imbento) lang ni Darwin yan hahaha.
Gaya rin ng ilang mga atheist na demand ng demand ng proof kung may God nga daw ba, same din ang dilemma ng mga evolutionary scientists pag hinanapan sila ng proof of existence of fossils or other evidences na mayroong ngang macro evolution at kung possible ba talaga ang macroevolution na ipinaniwala sa kanila ni Charles Darwin.
Sagot: God in the Bible.
The root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.”
Meaning kung may wisdom or knowledge ang tao certainly hindi ito na adopt ng tao sa mga animal or plant or any microorganism. Dahil both Bible and Science ay agree na hindi tao ang unang nagkaroon ng buhay sa mundo, kanino nakuha ng tao ang karunungan? Only from God. Kaya naniniwala ako na God exist at kaya't ang science ay nageexist dahil din kay God.
Another strong evidence that God exist.
Science Confirms a Creator
Science confirms the Law of Biogenesis: “life only comes from pre-existing life.” This is exactly what the Bible has said all along: – “In the beginning was the Word… the Word was God…In him was life…” (John 1:1–4, NIV)
The Bible states that the living God is the source of life on earth. This is in perfect agreement with the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, the most scientific statement you can make about the origin of life is “In the beginning, God…”
Evolution and “Stuff”
When it comes to the theory of evolution, there are two major problems that have not been resolved by scientific evidence. The first problem is the “origin of life” issue. Evolution assumes that life can come from non-living stuff. The third article in this series titled Science and the Origin of Life demonstrated how this idea is scientifically impossible. Scientific experiments confirm that life only comes from pre-existing life. This is called the Law of Biogenesis. Therefore, it was concluded that it takes God (a pre-existing living being) to originate life on earth.
But that is not the only problem for the theory of evolution. The theory goes on to assume that living organisms have the ability for unlimited change. Or, to put it another way, once you have something living, like the first amoeba, then it can change over time into something totally different, like a man. This is called “macro-evolution”.
But this “amoeba to man” theory has a major flaw. Think of it this way: a man has a lot more “stuff” than an amoeba, right? Stuff like hair, toes, ear wax, a circulatory system, brains, eyeballs, sweat, etc., etc., etc. So to go from a one-celled organism to something like a human, that little amoeba has to add more “stuff”. Somehow, somewhere, at sometime new and different “stuff” has to come on the scene to make this little amoeba guy progress toward manhood.
Discovering the Laws of Genetics
In the 1860’s, a Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, performed careful experiments on garden peas and discovered the patterns of heredity. This was later verified by Thomas Morgan in the early 1900s. Morgan found that heredity was located in the genetic makeup of DNA contained in every living cell. Experiments lead to discoveries about the scientific laws of genetics. These genetic laws govern the amount and kinds of change that is possible in plants and animals.
Thousands of experiments have been performed to verify how genetic laws operate. Artificial breeding has been applied to all types of plants and animals, from corn to cows. What have scientists discovered? Controlled breeding produces sweeter corn and cows that give more milk, but it never produces a different kind of plant or animal.
Or consider the dog family. Extensive breeding has produced a great variety of dogs, ranging from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua. But the offspring continue to be dogs. No new kind of animal has emerged. We have never been able to breed a dog with “new and improved” features, like feathers or gills. In other words, no new “stuff” has ever been produced. And if there is no new stuff, then there is no macro-evolution.
But science has discovered something else. If a variety of different dogs were let loose in Wyoming and left to “do their own thing”, after several generations the total population would revert back to a common stock. They would all start to look the same! This means there is a conserving quality built into the genetic material which insures that the species remain within certain limits.
This accumulation of scientific evidence has lead one scientist to remark, “Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.”
Years of experimentation have verified what the Laws of Genetics hold true: “You don’t get new stuff from genetic variation.” And no new stuff means no evolution!
But evolutionists say, “Hold it, we have an ace up our sleeve. Mutations can cause variations that lead to new stuff in the offspring. And given enough time, these small changes can take an amoeba all the way up to a man.” A high school biology textbook even says: “Mutations act as a source of the variation that is needed for a species to adapt to changing conditions or a new environment, and thus, evolve over time.” 3
But there is a fly in this evolutionary ointment. Mutations in genetic structure add nothing new to the offspring. Mutations only rearrange the stuff that is already there. Experiments done with fruit flies produced the following result: fruit flies with larger bodies, fruit flies with smaller bodies, fruit flies that couldn’t fly, blind fruit flies and dead fruit flies.
The experiment started with fruit flies and ended with weak, sickly, mutated fruit flies. No new kind of insect developed, just mutated fruit flies. No new “stuff” as added. The stuff that was already there was just rearranged or lost! These micro-changes do not add up over time to macro-stuff.
Remember, for evolution to take place, you have to add new stuff. NO NEW STUFF MEANS NO EVOLUTION.
Science confirms what we know to be true: plants and animals reproduce after their own kind. And this is exactly what the Bible has said all along. (See Genesis 1:12 & 25) So based on the best scientific evidence, God is necessary for the creation of the abundant variety of life on planet earth. This is the only view that is consistent with the facts.
Which Worldview Is Correct?
There are many ways to test the accuracy of the biblical worldview against naturalistic atheism (the worldview that controls most origins research). When our research is based upon biblical truths about the past, we find that our interpretations of the biological and geological facts make sense of what we see in the real world, whereas evolutionary interpretations don’t really fit what we see.
Let’s look at an example. The Bible says that God created distinct groups of animals “after their kind” (see Genesis 1). Starting with this truth of the Bible as one of our assumptions, we would expect to observe animals divided into distinct groups, or kinds. Creationists postulate that our creative God placed phenomenal variability in the genes of each kind, so there could be considerable variety within each kind. But the preprogrammed mechanism for variation within the kind could never change one kind into a different kind, as evolutionists claim and their belief system requires.
Informative boss!!!..nice.
- TS TS
- #350
Ang ating kalikasan boss kung iyo lang pag mamasdan at iintindihin lahat ay balansi ayon sa ating pang uunawa. Kung eto ay balansi, ang ibig lang sabihin nun. Ang nagagawa ng malait, nagagawarin ng malaki. Ang micro evolution para sakin ay madali lang subaybayan kasi maliit lang eto which requires a small span of time.
Ang macro at micro ay hindi ng kaka iba.
Lahat ay ng mula sa singularity o nothingness ayun sa mga pag aaral. At eto ay maari at pinapatunyan.
So, ang pakakaroon ng ating mundo ng mga Dino ay isa itong maituturing macro. Sa hinaba haba ng panahong ginugol ng kalikasan dyan para mabuo nya (from nothingness o singularity) ng hindi nya sinasadya o hindi nya ginawa para lang may gagawin o may mission, iyan ay natural lang tulad ng tao.
Kaya hindi ko alam yang sinasabi mong macro evolution ay imposible. Ang bibliya ay Tao lang ang may gawa, tao lang rin ang gumawa ng diyos kaya ang mga pang uunawa ng tao noon ang nakasaad dyan. Na hindi naman talaga rin nag kakalayo sa siyensya(kasi nga pang unawa lang rin eto ng tao na may basihan). A bibliya ay walang detalye kasi nga teorya lang rin yan ng mga tao noon. Pataas ng pataas ang nalalaman/kaalaman ng tao gumagamit na eto ng mga kagamitan para mas mauunawaan, ganun ka detalyado ang siyensya.
By laws of nature, ang sinasaad sa bibliya na ang pag gawa ay instant, yun ay taliwas at walang ganun by laws of nature. Dyan pasok na pasok ang evolution.
Tayo ay gawa ng kalikasan ng hindi sadya at walang gusto ipapatunayan, walang mission. Tayo ay natural na likha mapa micro man macro kung iyo itong iisipin. Tayo ay katiting lang na parte ng ating kalawakan.
Last edited:
angelkim2008
Honorary Poster
ang theory na yan ay si chard darwin ang nag pasimuno tapos na ang bible bago palang nag theory si darwin sa bible ako dahil hindi ako naniniwala sa big bang na nag banggaan daw yung cometa tapos naging gas at naging microbio nag ivolve naging bulate isda at unggoy at naging tao bugook lang maniniwala dun... yung block hole magbasa kayo sa SANA ang sabi kpag sumabog ang cometa mag kakaroon ng heavy gravity which is hihigupin ka sa kawalan sabi ng sensya yan sumabog yun meron ding nagbabangaan at lilikha ng block whole paano mo ngayon i kokompara yun sa earth na nag banggan ng una sabi ng paniniwala nyo,, eh hihigop pla yun sa kawalan at tutunawin ka sabi yan ng NASA kaya ikaw ts mag bago kana ng paniniwala mo... wagkang maniwala na lahi ka ng unggoy... yan ang finaly nyan sa unggoy na nag ivolve ka lang uuwi hayaan mo nlng si darwin hibang yun....
angelkim2008
Honorary Poster
yung micro na sinasabi mo micro parin yan kahit billion yrs kapa ang hayop di kayang maging kalabaw ang kabayo mamamatay kana di mo parin mapapatunayan yang ivolution na yan pag naging totoo na si cyclopes at si wolverin maniniwala nako sayo..
- TS TS
- #353
Naiintindihan kita iyong pananaw mam, may tanong po ako. Aling ba ang naunang may buhay dito sa at mundo?
Tao o micro organisms? Hayop o tao? Halaman o tao? Tubig o tao? Lupa o tao? Hangin o tao?
Kung nababasa kanang libro ng evolution theory pasok ang usaping traits and behavioral na naipapasa mula sa kanila pa punta sa atin. Hindi tayo maging tao kung hindi dahil sa lahat ng iyan.
Alam mo ba kung ilang taon ang ginugol ng mundo para magawa o malikha ang tulad nating? Na dumaan pa sa mga upright na uri ng unggoy? Ngkaroon ng cave man hindi natin yun matatanggi. Asan naba ang uri nila ngayon? Ganun po ka napakahiwaga ng mundo. At hindi pa ito tapos. At lalong hindi natin ito mamalayan
Ang evolution ay ng mula sa organismo at naging complex wala itong katapusan. Isa yan sa laws of nature.
Pagka hindi mo ito kita ibig sabihin believer ka. At kung atheist ka at hindi ka nanaliksik hindi mo rin ito makikita. Yan ang isa sa patunay na ni isa sa pinaniniwalaan ng tao na Diyos ay hindi totoo. At hindi mo ito matatanggi.
_hindi ako atheist
Last edited:
Powered by Pancit Canton
Forum Guru
Makikisabat
Saan galing ang micro organismo na pinagmulan ng lahat ng may buhay ayon sa ebulosyon?
angelkim2008
Honorary Poster
kay darwin galing ang evolution mo yung taeh mo organism yan sige nga ipag evolve mo nga yan .
yung kulangot mo organism parin yan... may nakita kang organismo sa katawan ng tao ang theory mo galing na ang tao jan ..kung totoo na galing ka sa unggoy dapat wala ng unggoy sa mundo... yung organismo di mo na ma identify specifically in human baka mag punta kapa sa mass yung atom nucleus particles is composition yan pero hindi kayang mag compose ng flesh ang mga yan dahil yang organismo ay sumasama lang sa matter.. tulad ng balat mo...kung unggoy ka wagmo nang isama ang bible kasi nga di kanaman naniniwala kay adam at sa dyos... yung big bang mo ghong ghong yun sisirain ka nyan di yan bubuo ng katulad ng earth or matter...
Powered by Pancit Canton
Forum Guru
Easy lang brad di ako athiest pareho tayo ng pananampalataya
- TS TS
- #358
Ang unang may buhay sa ating mundo ay organismo, tama ka at ito ay mula sa tubig, na syang unang lugar na nagkaroon ng buhay. Kung duda ka. Mg experiment, mg lagay ng tubig(alat o tabang) sa baso na may presensya ng hangin at init sa araw. Ilang linggo ay magkakaroon yan ng may buhay.
Pero kung ang tanong mo is saan galing ang organism kasi sasabihin mong bigay o likha ng diyos.
Eto sa sagot ko wala sila kung wala ang lupa,hangin,tubig at araw. At ngyari nga ang lahat ng iyang sa isang bigbang rin na pinmumulan o pagka likha na mundo. Note nauna nang may Araw.
Magbasa ng bibliya kung hindi ba sila salungat.
Powered by Pancit Canton
Forum Guru
Tama brad , katunayan dyan ay ang mga diamonds na umiedad ng billion years na nahuhukay sa earth
angelkim2008
Honorary Poster
pasensya na ang ts pinag pipilitang nag ivolve ang microbio ghong ghong yan sige nga mag experiment ka nga na mag kakaroon ng buhay yung sinasabi mong sa baso.. milyong taon microbio parin yan.. kung totoo na ang darwin na yan sa evolution mo bakit hanngang ngayon hindi mailipat ang dugo or ormons ng unngoy sa tao... kasi nga mag kaiba sila sa isang organismo na meron ang tao ay billion ang defirents sa hormons ng tao.. kung totoo na galing ka sa chonggo bakit di mo magamit ang dugo nya sayo... ganun lang yan ts baliw lang yung darwin na yun.
Note nauna nang may Araw. mali magbasa ka tunghaw ang araw nilikha in 3days of creation hindi na una yan basa ka gen 1:1 hanghang 30
kung totoo yan bakit may taong mukhang kabayo ibig sabihin galing ba sila sa kabayo walang basehan yung evolution mo di nga napatunayan ni darwin yung theory of ape eh tapos naniniwala ka jan unggoy ka nga kung ganun..
wag mo nanag isama yung bible sa evolution mo tapos sasabihin mo di pinipilit na maging athiest yung magbabasa nito wag mo isama ang bible gawa ka ng walang comparison pure topic ng evolution lang dapat.. pag naniwala ka jan sa bible at binasa mo magiging matalino ka kapag binasa mo yng libro ni darwin magiging kasing hungang ka ng unggoy subukan mo...
Similar threads
-
-
Trivia Ang Siklo ng Buhay at Kamatayan ng mga Hindi Mananampalataya (Mga piling sipi) part 1
- Started by yasuomain12
- Replies: 17
-
Trivia Sapat Na Ba ang Pananampalataya kay Jesus Para Maligtas?
- Started by Gentleman007
- Replies: 1
-
Trivia Ang Siklo ng Buhay at Kamatayan ng mga Hindi Mananampalataya (Mga piling sipi) Part 3
- Started by yasuomain12
- Replies: 0
-
Trivia Ang Siklo ng Buhay at Kamatayan ng Iba-ibang Taong May Pananampalataya(part 4)
- Started by yasuomain12
- Replies: 0
Popular Tags
about
amen
ang
april
as
atheist
beliefs
bible
bible verse
bible verses
christianity
daily
day
diyos
faith
father
gentleman007
god
grimlifehacks
heaven
heavenly father
in
january
jesus
life
love
march
mass
only
people
personal
philippine folklore
popular
prayer
psalms
reading
readings
religion
sagot ng bibliya
savior
that
the bible
trivia
verse
verses
way
what
why
you
your