Evolution? How?

Momma Angel wrote:

Questioner,

I can only suggest a couple of things here.

1) Talk to C.I. He's the one that told me that I needed to look stuff up in the dictionary.

2) If you don't agree with the definition in the dictionary, I guess you can always lobby to have the definitions changed.

3) Talk to Frank, he's the one that is so stuck on the words beliefs, guesses, know, etc.

If all of you can straighten this out for me, I'd sure appreciate it.

Just won't give an inch, huh?

Ok, read what you wrote, read what I wrote. THIS is where arguing with you gets frustrating MA. I have NO problems with the definition of KNOW in the dictionary. It's YOU that apparently can't accept that it is DEFINABLY impossible to KNOW something about faith.

You, MA, are offering the above 3 points as nothing more than an attempt to alter the position of what I said to something else. WHY you do this is speculation, but THAT you do it is not. If you do not have the respect for me to take what I write as is, without adding your own little devious spin on it, then kindly leave it alone.

I do not alter your words, I do not call you names, nor do I belittle you. Having discarded the beliefs that I held for so long I argue here in the hopes that someone from the Christian persuasion will provide good points for me to consider, concepts I have not thought of, and intelligent conversation to back up the previous. I hope this so that I might eventually rediscover what it was I originally had faith in so that I can pick it up again from a stronger perspective.

You have so far done nothing but espouse profound statements, and then backpeddle like crazy when someone questions said statements. Your definitions in this instance are pointless. Frank asserts that there are things out there that are "unknown". He asserts this because they are things that we don't know. If we don't know them, how can your statement that "We as believers refer to these as things we KNOW"?

And kindly take what i'm saying as what i'm saying, without adding your own biased re-interpretations.

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Sorry, but Quantum Electrodynamics is a bit over my head. I suspect they have some sort of answer. But let me just cut this short by saying that even regarding aspects of the origin of the universe that science doesn't understand yet, just as it once didn't understand the nature of thunder and lightning, I would hardly take that as cause to postulate supernatural forces. If you criticize science for not having solved everything with convincing proofs, you can hardly turn around and offer a magical explanation with no proof at all.

Do we, at last, understand the nature of thunder and lightning? Or do we just explain it to our satisfaction?

Really, that is all the bible was ever meant to do: explain things to the satisfaction of the uninitiated.

Baloney. We understand the nature of thunder and lightning as they fit into the entire framework of Physics and Chemistry. Our knowledge of these things has worked well enough to give us our civilization, which makes it possible for you to send these words to an Internet message board, and get a doctor when you're sick. The Bible is a non-scientific document, obtained by non-scientific means, which is not generally subject to any testing or verification, and whose adherents merely dance quickly when asked for supporting evidence.

It's amusing when we are, in effect, saying the same thing. You say our understanding of thunder and lightning has worked well enough and the bible is not scientific. I agree.

Where we disagree is in your assertion that the bible cannot be verified. It can, once the straw men have been exposed.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Not in the simple sense that you may mean it, since time itself is part of the cosmos that was created in the Big Bang.

Interesting comment.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The bottom line is that you are attempting to do QE without learning it, and I cannot bless that. Simple arguments about cause and effect, based on intuition obtained in the realm of our experience, are not necessarily correct.

Nor are they necessarily incorrect.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Even if it could be shown that present theory wasn't adequate to explain something, which I do not grant, the last thing I'd do would be to switch to primitive superstitions. If you have an emotional need to believe this stuff, go ahead, but don't claim a rational basis for it.

The straw man rears its head.

1) Talk to C.I. He's the one that told me that I needed to look stuff up in the dictionary.

2) If you don't agree with the definition in the dictionary, I guess you can always lobby to have the definitions changed.

3) Talk to Frank, he's the one that is so stuck on the words beliefs, guesses, know, etc.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

real and neo, If you really want to be silly, who created god? If your assumptions about something can't come from nothing, we must then ask where did god come from? From nothing? The only logical answer is "man's creation."

I can answer that one C.I., God was not created. He is the Alpha and the Omega. He always has been and always will be. That's pretty strong stuff for anyone to wrap their head around I know, but, He is, after all God.

And maybe there are no gods...and the universe, and all the stuff in it, has always existed.

Maybe everything is an illusion to one mind....and nothing else exists.

Maybe a whole bunch of things.

We agnostics refer to this stuff as "unknown."

Frank,

And we believers refer to these things as what we KNOW according to our faith.

Quote:

1) Talk to C.I. He's the one that told me that I needed to look stuff up in the dictionary.

2) If you don't agree with the definition in the dictionary, I guess you can always lobby to have the definitions changed.

3) Talk to Frank, he's the one that is so stuck on the words beliefs, guesses, know, etc.

This is what I'm referring to MA. In case you somehow managed to forget it in the past 45 mins.

Never said I didn't agree with the definitions, YOU said that for me. I said I disagreed with your usage of them in the context provided. You reworded, fine. But there is no excuse for the above quote. None.

If you feel you need to take a parting shot, fine. Call me names, whatever. Rewording what was SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN DOWN in order to make some obscure, and rather childish jab is ridiculous, and beneath you.

We are aware that you claim to be sure, but we are also aware that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. Anyone can claim to know something, but one needs a way to determine who is correct and who is self-deluded.

Frank,

So, you disagree with the dictionary? You are the one that has been so stuck on the definition of things, Frank. Why do you avoid the definitions I have bolded in my above posts about the definition of know?

I do not understand why you are ignoring the definitions. Can you explain, please?

Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:

We are aware that you claim to be sure, but we are also aware that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. Anyone can claim to know something, but one needs a way to determine who is correct and who is self-deluded.

Actually, I claimed to know and I have no evidence that will satisfy you.

Please explain self-deluded in this context? I know what self-deluded means. Why do you use that term specifically?

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

So, you disagree with the dictionary? You are the one that has been so stuck on the definition of things, Frank. Why do you avoid the definitions I have bolded in my above posts about the definition of know?

I do not understand why you are ignoring the definitions. Can you explain, please?

I probably could...but I doubt it would make a dent....so more than likely, I won't.

You undoubtedly KNOW many things, MA...but you do not KNOW the things you are accepting "on faith." The things you are accepting "on faith" are things YOU MOST ASSUREDLY DO NOT KNOW...but that you want so much to be so...that you are willing to guess they are true and insist that your guesses are correct.

Frankly, the notion of Christians spouting their nonsense about KNOWING all the nonsense they claim to KNOW...just because they have guessed that it is so...should be confined to forums dealing with fiction.

The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world. The evolution of all the organisms that live on earth today from ancestors that lived in the past is at the core of genetics, biochemistry, neurobiology, physiology, ecology, and other biological disciplines. It helps to explain the emergence of new infectious diseases, the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the agricultural relationships among wild and domestic plants and animals, the composition of the earth's atmosphere, the molecular machinery of the cell, the similarities between human beings and other primates, and countless other features of the biological and physical world.

Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:

We are aware that you claim to be sure, but we are also aware that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. Anyone can claim to know something, but one needs a way to determine who is correct and who is self-deluded.

Actually, I claimed to know and I have no evidence that will satisfy you. Please explain self-deluded in this context? I know what self-deluded means. Why do you use that term specifically?

Questioner,

You totally misunderstood. I did not intend that as a jab at all.

I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant. But, I honestly did not mean that as a jab. I was being serious.

I was trying to point out that even when I offered evidence it wasn't accepted. So, I do apologize if I offended you. I can understand how you might have taken that as a jab, but it was not.

I have been enjoying our discussion and I don't wish that to change.

Sometimes, I think we all read tones into things that may or may not be there. When you can't see the person you are conversing with, things like inflection and body language are left out. Those things are perceived by the reader, and are admittedly, often wrong.

Truce?

Momma Angel wrote:

Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:

We are aware that you claim to be sure, but we are also aware that you have no evidence to support your beliefs. Anyone can claim to know something, but one needs a way to determine who is correct and who is self-deluded.

Actually, I claimed to know and I have no evidence that will satisfy you. Please explain self-deluded in this context? I know what self-deluded means. Why do you use that term specifically?

When I "meet" someone who claims to know something, but has no credible evidence for it, I find myself needing a method to find out who actually knows a truth, and who has merely fooled himself into thinking he does. The only tool I believe could ever exist is if that person tells me the thinking process by which he has arrived at the belief, and it makes some kind of sense.

Interesting exchange going on here. All this talk about faith and knowing etc.

If we take the bible definition of faith we read:
Hebrews 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This definition is accepted by Christians. We hope that we are right about our God and we have faith that it is so even though we cannot see the physical evidence of Him. Our faith is hope and you cannot absolutely know that your hope/faith is correct. We believe it because we choose to believe it. If it was totally provable...everybody would believe and we would not be having these discussions. I know that my faith is strong, but I cannot know that what I believe is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do, however, believe it.

On the other side, the question of what existed and how it existed before the "big bang" cannot be answered. You believe there is a reason, but you do not know what it is.

Faith is also the ascent of the mind to believe that which someone has told us as true. To this end, I would say that both Creationists and Evolutionists have faith in at least part of their assertions.

The problem comes in when emotions take over from the reasonable.

Just my two cents. Carry on.