Evolution? How?

brahmin wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

Just because you feel something is proven to you, does that mean it is the truth?

exactly the question i wanted to ask creationalists !!

Momma Angel wrote:
What we do understand is that the miracle of the science comes from God and not man.

a fundamental difference between the truely scientific and the er.. religiously immersed, is that the former do not consider science to be a miracle. infact they consider science and miracles to be mutually exclusive. something is science or a "miracle".

Momma Angel wrote:
I have offered you proof of God's existence and so have others.

what are those proofs??

that the planets orbit the sun??
that babies are born??
that internet exists??

as an aside, i think its quite a miracle, the way the Enuma Elish has been shunted out of the equation... or maybe that was science

brahmin,

I have no idea if you are trying to be sarcastic or not so I will assume you aren't, ok?

Brahmin, I believe God created man. God gave us the ability to think, etc. If He had not, I doubt science would even be here.

And the internet? Please! I am not stupid. I said I offered what I felt was proof. If it is not accepted as such, that makes it proof nonetheless. It is just unaccepted as such. And I'm glad you got my point.

If someone believes the proof then of course it is truth to them. That is, uh, what do they call that? Oh yeah, common sense.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Earthquakes on Mars; God's practice site.

Mars warming; God is sending so many souls to Hell that he has run out of room. Mars is the overflow.

Many scientists are very sure that global warming on Earth is caused by human activity. ( I wonder what's causing the Martian warming?)

Those who disagree with them are painted as "anti science" and "backward, ignorant and close minded".

These scientists further postulate disastrous scenarios that await us in the next 100 years if the global temperature average increases by 0.5-2.0 degrees.

This is based on "evidence" gathered over the last 100 years, chiefly temperature readings from various spots on the globe.

What is willingly ignored is the rather large margin of error that must be taken into account when dealing with temperature readings taken decades ago. Do we really think that folks taking temperature readings 50, 60 , 70, 100 years ago were able to take them with the same accuracy as we can today?

A difference of as little as 1-2 degrees due to the lack of precision in equipment years ago, or due to human error or other factors can greatly affect these studies.

But we are told with great emphasis, that anyone who rejects the solid findings of science is little more than a nut case.

What has this to do with Evolution? I think the possible analogies are obvious. We are dealing with largely circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it.

We are told again that anyone who rejects the solid findings of science is little more than a nut case.

You'll forgive me, I hope, if I continue to doubt.

0 Replies

Those "who rejects the solid findings of science is" not a nut case, but ignorant.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those "who rejects the solid findings of science is" not a nut case, but ignorant.

It can also be said that those that do not know how to correctly use the English language are also ignorant? What's the distinction?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

brahmin wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:

Just because you feel something is proven to you, does that mean it is the truth?

exactly the question i wanted to ask creationalists !!

Momma Angel wrote:
What we do understand is that the miracle of the science comes from God and not man.

a fundamental difference between the truely scientific and the er.. religiously immersed, is that the former do not consider science to be a miracle. infact they consider science and miracles to be mutually exclusive. something is science or a "miracle".

Momma Angel wrote:
I have offered you proof of God's existence and so have others.

what are those proofs??

that the planets orbit the sun??
that babies are born??
that internet exists??

as an aside, i think its quite a miracle, the way the Enuma Elish has been shunted out of the equation... or maybe that was science

brahmin,

I have no idea if you are trying to be sarcastic or not so I will assume you aren't, ok?

yeah continue assuming..... Wink

Momma Angel wrote:

Brahmin, I believe God created man. God gave us the ability to think, etc. If He had not, I doubt science would even be here.

what do you imply by that?? that science exists cos god gave us the ability to think ?? and that if we couldnt think any better than donkeys/biblical asses do, science would not exist?? just cos we had it not in us to figure science out??

besides, i dont see how, even if god created man, it becomes implicit that he did the creating in all of 6 days. after all man is a mighty difficult lifeform to create, having as he does, "the ability to think" (though this doesnt apply to all humanoids)

Momma Angel wrote:

And the internet? Please! I am not stupid. I said I offered what I felt was proof. If it is not accepted as such, that makes it proof nonetheless. It is just unaccepted as such. And I'm glad you got my point.

i never implied you are !!

all i asked was what the proof was.

besides, i dont see how it continues to be proof - even if its not accepted as such. or contrarywise (as ace bible belter, Dubya would say) - i dont see how just cos only a few accept it as proof, it becomes one.

If you get my point, i'll be glad indeed (i dont assume others get mine !!)

Momma Angel wrote:

If someone believes the proof then of course it is truth to them. That is, uh, what do they call that? Oh yeah, common sense.

yes common sense... quite a good misnomer.... given that its not as common as its made out to be...

Anyways i want to point out, that proofs are not proofs cos people believe in them. they are proof regardless.

0 Replies

The distinction is simple. One is science, and the other is grammar. People who fail to understand such simple distinctions should play in their back yards.

0 Replies

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:

what do you imply by that?? that science exists cos god gave us the ability to think ?? and that if we couldnt think any better than donkeys/biblical asses do, science would not exist?? just cos we had it not in us to figure science out??

besides, i dont see how, even if god created man, it becomes implicit that he did the creating in all of 6 days. after all man is a mighty difficult lifeform to create, having as he does, "the ability to think" (though this doesnt apply to all humanoids)

donkeys/biblical asses? Excuse me?

He is God. He can do anything. He can create anything in any amount of time He wants to. What is so hard to understand about that? He created Man. He gave man the ability to think, feel, etc.

brahmin wrote:

Quote:

besides, i dont see how it continues to be proof - even if its not accepted as such. or contrarywise (as ace bible belter, Dubya would say) - i dont see how just cos only a few accept it as proof, it becomes one.

Look, someone had to say it was proof. Plain and simple. And a few? A FEW?! Do you know how many Christians there are in this world? You call that a few?

If you want the proof I offered (probably in another thread) I will be happy to give it to you. However, I do not feel you would accept it as such. Even if you do not accept it, it is proof in my opinion.

Proof regardless? Who says so? Man? Hmmmm, God is superior to man.

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

The distinction is simple. One is science, and the other is grammar. People who fail to understand such simple distinctions should play in their back yards.

Then, I suggest you go out and play. I know one is science and one is grammar. That was not my point. My point was, you say because some don't accept your scientific proof that is ignorant. I say you were showing an ignorance of the English language.

Ignorance is ignorance. I pointed out that you were ignorant of your use of the language, NOT THAT YOU WERE IGNORANT. That's the distinction.

Just because people do not believe what you do or do not believe does not make them ignorant, it makes them different and human.

0 Replies

"...my scientific proof?" Where'd you read that? I have never in my life proved a scientific fact. You're not only ignorant, but prone to great imagination. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...my scientific proof?" Where'd you read that? I have never in my life proved a scientific fact. You're not only ignorant, but prone to great imagination. LOL

Are you serious? I am not saying you are a scientist and proved something scientifically.

Let me rephrase then, because some don't accept the scientific proof that you accept... Is that better?

And, would you please stop calling me ignorant? How old are you anyway?

0 Replies

MA wrote: "I know one is science and grammar."

Your grammar is lacking big time. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

MA wrote: "I know one is science and grammar."

Your grammar is lacking big time. LOL

C.I.,

Yes, I made a mistake and I corrected that mistake. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

I have no desire to share tit for tat with you, ok? I am in the middle of a tropical storm here. My roof is being torn off my house and I have a ton of trees being deposited at my door and we are on a tornado watch. So, to put things in perspective, I really don't see how our little discussion is helping anything.

You never did answer me. How old are you?

0 Replies

MA, Don't be so critical of other people's grammar. It eventually ends up biting you on your behind sooner or later. I've never claimed to be skilled in the English language and grammar, and make my share of mistakes. The importance of written communication is the ability of others to understand what you mean. We have many on a2k whose primary language is not English, so we must make allowances for some of them.

Now, back to the topic.

0 Replies

I'm an old fart whose traveled around the world a few times.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Those "who rejects the solid findings of science is" not a nut case, but ignorant.

History is filled with stories of great scientists and inventors who were told by the leading scientific men of their day "it can't be done" or "only an ignorant fool would think that" or some such.

0 Replies

real, The key words here are "solid findings."

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

brahmin Wrote:

Quote:
what do you imply by that?? that science exists cos god gave us the ability to think ?? and that if we couldnt think any better than donkeys/biblical asses do, science would not exist?? just cos we had it not in us to figure science out??

besides, i dont see how, even if god created man, it becomes implicit that he did the creating in all of 6 days. after all man is a mighty difficult lifeform to create, having as he does, "the ability to think" (though this doesnt apply to all humanoids)

donkeys/biblical asses? Excuse me?

He is God. He can do anything. He can create anything in any amount of time He wants to. What is so hard to understand about that? He created Man. He gave man the ability to think, feel, etc.

about the bit in bold...whatever he does... has to be relativistically allowable though.

can you prove that HE created man ... and that man did not come about because of evolution and/or the anthropic principle.

besides, it still hasn't answeed my question. so i'll give you another chance.

Momma Angel wrote:

brahmin wrote:

Quote:
besides, i dont see how it continues to be proof - even if its not accepted as such. or contrarywise (as ace bible belter, Dubya would say) - i dont see how just cos only a few accept it as proof, it becomes one.

Look, someone had to say it was proof. Plain and simple. And a few? A FEW?! Do you know how many Christians there are in this world? You call that a few?

If you want the proof I offered (probably in another thread) I will be happy to give it to you. However, I do not feel you would accept it as such. Even if you do not accept it, it is proof in my opinion.

Proof regardless? Who says so? Man? Hmmmm, God is superior to man.

Look, to be considered proof, it has to check out in the laboratory. it has to be proven scientifically.

it doesnt matter how many christians are there and whether they all agree on the Sumerian myth of creationalism. even if all the world believed that the sun went round the earth, as once the whole christian world did believe, it still would not be proof. belief is NOT proof.

whether people believe 2+2 makes 5 or whether they dont, is immeterial.

and yes, do supply whatever "proof" you have. but just because its proof in your opinion or of half the world, it still would not ammount to any more than horse **** unless it checked out scientifically.

as for your answer to the "proof regardless" - i am beginning to think that its not just grammer you lack in, but vocabulary as well.

"proof regardless" means - regardless of how many people believe in it. more people believe in classical mechanics than quantum, does not make classical mechanics accurate. it fails to check out scientifically and hence regardless of how many people believed in it, it still isnt true.

god is superior to man?? how?? by defination??

0 Replies

How can god be superior to man? Man created god(s). Man also created Santa Clause and Superman. These claims can all be proven; all the authors of the bible were men (and no women). They copied mythology and ancient tales to arrive at what is now called the bible. Most of the comic books and fisctional characerts were created and produced in the US of A. I think Santa Clause came from Germany.

0 Replies

Oh great! Now, you guys are going to start attacking me? No thanx. I was trying to point out to C.I. that there are all kinds of differing opinions and just because some might not agree does not mean they are ignorant.

And tell you what? I will lay off the pointing out bad grammar if you guys will lay off too? Deal. I guess I am just stressed because of the storm and I do apologize for that.

brahmin,

Are you serious about how is God superior to man? I would think that would be pretty explanatory.

0 Replies

Real

Quote:

Many scientists are very sure that global warming on Earth is caused by human activity.

Many scientist are sure of global warming.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html

Many are sure that part of the cause is the increase of greenhouse gas. This does not mean that there are not other causes.

Quote:

These scientists further postulate disastrous scenarios that await us in the next 100 years if the global temperature average increases by 0.5-2.0 degrees.

Yes, it is possible and it could have disastrous effects on human population. The melting of land glaciers resulting in a rise of sea level is not something to pass off as fantasy. It's happening now. The possible disruption of the Gulf Stream could have a disastrous effect on the climate of Europe. This, in turn, can have an effect of the climates in other parts of the world.

This is something that must be taken seriously because the consequences could be very severe for the human population. We should be preparing for the worse case scenario rather then make excuses like these;

Quote:

Do we really think that folks taking temperature readings 50, 60 , 70, 100 years ago were able to take them with the same accuracy as we can today?

A difference of as little as 1-2 degrees due to the lack of precision in equipment years ago, or due to human error or other factors can greatly affect these studies.

You said;

Quote:

What has this to do with Evolution? I think the possible analogies are obvious. We are dealing with largely circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it.

There is a far greater foundation for evolution in science then Creationism in the Bible. You have no science to support Creationism. You have nothing but an ancient myth created by humans to explain the unknown. It is written in a book that degrades and insults God. The Bible is not worthy of any consideration with regards to what God is, how the universe was created or how humans emerged on this planet.

As I have said before, if you want to believe in a God that is no better then a Hitler, a Stalin or a Mao that's your prerogative. I would like to think God is better then humans. I will not believe in a God that can't live up to human standards.

If your Bible can't get God right why should we believe it got creation right. If your creation myth is so accurate why can't it be supported by science? The reason is the Bible is as wrong about creation as it is about God.

On top of that, your Bible is so screwed up it doesn't know the shape of the earth, who moves around what or what the stars are.

And you want to use that as an authority on human creation over science?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

How can god be superior to man? Man created god(s). Man also created Santa Clause and Superman. These claims can all be proven; all the authors of the bible were men (and no women). They copied mythology and ancient tales to arrive at what is now called the bible. Most of the comic books and fisctional characerts were created and produced in the US of A. I think Santa Clause came from Germany.

"Isis with the babe Horus became the Madonna with Child. The bearded and horse-borne Germanic god Wodan became Saint Nicolas, later americanized as Santa Claus. Even the Buddha found a place on the saints' calendar under the name Saint Josaphat. The autumnal celebration of the dead became All Saints' Day and All Souls' Day, which is nowadays regaining its purely Pagan colours in the form of Hallowe'en. The date of Easter (from the Germanic dawn goddess Eostra/Ostarra) combines the Pagan symbolism of Spring Equinox and Full Moon with the Christian innovation of Sunday as the day of the Lord,-- an innovation which itself was borrowed from the solar cult of Mithraism, a late-Roman type of Masonic Lodge inspired by both Iranian Mazdeism and astrology. Winter Solstice as its feast of the Invincible Sun became Christmas."
- Dr. koenraad elst.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know