Evolution? How?

He's the alpha and the omega....you dummy! LOL * As if such words mean anything at all/

0 Replies

Don't no nut'n about proof,
Don't no nut'n about evidence,
Don't no nut'n about show and tell,
But I got alpha and omega....

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

What good is a "conscience" to a person who has intentionally be deprived of the knowledge of what is right...what is wrong...what is good...and what is evil?

What good is a "conscience" to someone who does not know that there is anything wrong or evil about which to have a conscience?

Are you being obtuse because you see that your position on this issue is absurd and indefensible...or because you truly do not see that one cannot be logically said to possess a "conscience" if that person has been deprived of the knowledge of what is right and wrong...good and evil?

And...

...one cannot logically assert that a person purposefully deprived of the knowledge of good and evil...right and wrong....

...can exercise any "free will" he/she supposedly has in any matter than is going to be later judged to be right, wrong, good, or evil.

Face up to that, Neo.

The perfect conscience is innate. God, having created Adam and Eve, programmed them with an aversion to sin. Adam did not have to wonder if it was OK to steal or commit adultery; He was incapable of it. If this was all there was to it, Adam and Eve would have been perfect robots and we would all be alive today living happy lives in the smiley farm and life would be beautiful all day long.

No free will - Everything perfect - So what?

So God gave them the choice of whether or not they would continue with His arrangement. He warned them the consequence would be death; but they disobeyed anyway.

You think an omniscient God would, of necessity, know how such a choice would turn out? Do you believe that God must necessarily have known that Satan would pick that time to incite the rebellion? Then you don't understand what a gift we have in our free will.

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would have no need for the bible. The entire history of man is a consequence of that rebellion and the bible, woven into that history, clearly tells what God has done and intends to do so that his purpose for the earth will become.

Since Frank's statements are completely on point, I've taken the liberty to place this post in the previously mentioned thread.

0 Replies

Ya can't have an aversion to something you know nothing about. The only case where this iis true is to believe in what the bible says.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Ya can't have an aversion to something you know nothing about. The only case where this iis true is to believe in what the bible says.

Would you care to tell us, CI, how you developed your aversion to eating dog excrement?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Adam did not have to wonder if it was OK to steal or commit adultery; He was incapable of it.

What? No sheep in Eden?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.

real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.

I'll go along with equally valid. I think both the idea of Creation by an incredibly intelligent and eternally pre-existent God and the idea of random generation of complex systems and organisms by eternally pre-existent matter and blind chance are both ideas that are statements of faith, since no human being has actually observed either or has anything more direct than circumstantial evidence and inference to support the idea.

Thanks for negating most of science and Man's struggle to understand the world in one sentence.

You are welcome. Doesn't science require observable, verifiable data?

0 Replies

I guess faith has no need for observable, verifiable data; which means they may select any story they choose and call it Truth.

What a cop-out.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.

real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.

I'll go along with equally valid. I think both the idea of Creation by an incredibly intelligent and eternally pre-existent God and the idea of random generation of complex systems and organisms by eternally pre-existent matter and blind chance are both ideas that are statements of faith, since no human being has actually observed either or has anything more direct than circumstantial evidence and inference to support the idea.

Thanks for negating most of science and Man's struggle to understand the world in one sentence.

You are welcome. Doesn't science require observable, verifiable data?

Yes, but the phenomenon under study doesn't have to be directly observable, e.g. atoms. Fossils are observable. The adaptability of bacteria to medicines is observable.

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

The perfect conscience is innate. God, having created Adam and Eve, programmed them with an aversion to sin. Adam did not have to wonder if it was OK to steal or commit adultery; He was incapable of it.

I see. I must have missed that passage.

Would you furnish a citation of the biblical passage upon which you base this gratuitous, self-serving rationalization.

Quote:

If this was all there was to it, Adam and Eve would have been perfect robots and we would all be alive today living happy lives in the smiley farm and life would be beautiful all day long.

No free will - Everything perfect - So what?

Ahhhso you see that not only is the story itself sillyyour explanation of the "perfect conscience" is even sillier unless you dream up this "free will" thing.

Quote:

So God gave them the choice of whether or not they would continue with His arrangement. He warned them the consequence would be death; but they disobeyed anyway.

Yup. And the Bible is absolutely clear that they did not know the difference between right and wrongbetween good and evil when the god did this.

You cannot get away from that, Neobecause the Bible tells us that the forbidden fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil."

In fact, the serpent and Eve even discussed the issue.

"No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." Genesis 3:5

And you god acknowledged the same thing, when it said:

"See? The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" Genesis 3:22

There is no doubt that the Bible has Adam and Eve in the Garden without knowledge of what is good and badso your rationalizations and talk about "perfect conscience" is nonsense.

Quote:

You think an omniscient God would, of necessity, know how such a choice would turn out?

I think a 6 year old human would be able to guess!

Quote:

Do you believe that God must necessarily have known that Satan would pick that time to incite the rebellion?

Keep that "believing" nonsense to yourself, Neo. I don't do it. But if you are asking me if I think a god would test humanity in the way the fairytale tells usthe god certainly should have protected the couple from Satan since the god had already put them into this mess without the protection of knowledge of good and bad.

And since you people keep spouting on and on about how you god knows each beat of each butterfly's wingthe god should have known Satan was working on Adam and Eveand should have put a stop to it.

Unless, of course, the entire thing was a set-upa sting.

Quote:

Then you don't understand what a gift we have in our free will.

Well, since their "gift" got them punished in the most severe way possibleand since all the rest of humanity was also punished

perhaps it is you who really does not understand the "gift of free will."

In any case, if the god was too ignorant or evil to consider the problem with giving humans free will without benefit of the knowledge of good and evilthe god is too stupid to be deserving of worship.

Quote:

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would have no need for the bible.

Without superstitionthere would be no need for a Bible either.

The story is absurdand any reasonable person would come away disgusted with the god.

Quote:

The entire history of man is a consequence of that rebellion and the bible, woven into that history, clearly tells what God has done and intends to do so that his purpose for the earth will become.

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

The perfect conscience is innate. God, having created Adam and Eve, programmed them with an aversion to sin. Adam did not have to wonder if it was OK to steal or commit adultery; He was incapable of it.

I see. I must have missed that passage.

Would you furnish a citation of the biblical passage upon which you base this gratuitous, self-serving rationalization.

Quote:

If this was all there was to it, Adam and Eve would have been perfect robots and we would all be alive today living happy lives in the smiley farm and life would be beautiful all day long.

No free will - Everything perfect - So what?

Ahhhso you see that not only is the story itself sillyyour explanation of the "perfect conscience" is even sillier unless you dream up this "free will" thing.

Quote:

So God gave them the choice of whether or not they would continue with His arrangement. He warned them the consequence would be death; but they disobeyed anyway.

Yup. And the Bible is absolutely clear that they did not know the difference between right and wrongbetween good and evil when the god did this.

You cannot get away from that, Neobecause the Bible tells us that the forbidden fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil."

In fact, the serpent and Eve even discussed the issue.

"No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." Genesis 3:5

And you god acknowledged the same thing, when it said:

"See? The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" Genesis 3:22

There is no doubt that the Bible has Adam and Eve in the Garden without knowledge of what is good and badso your rationalizations and talk about "perfect conscience" is nonsense.

Quote:

You think an omniscient God would, of necessity, know how such a choice would turn out?

I think a 6 year old human would be able to guess!

Quote:

Do you believe that God must necessarily have known that Satan would pick that time to incite the rebellion?

Keep that "believing" nonsense to yourself, Neo. I don't do it. But if you are asking me if I think a god would test humanity in the way the fairytale tells usthe god certainly should have protected the couple from Satan since the god had already put them into this mess without the protection of knowledge of good and bad.

And since you people keep spouting on and on about how you god knows each beat of each butterfly's wingthe god should have known Satan was working on Adam and Eveand should have put a stop to it.

Unless, of course, the entire thing was a set-upa sting.

Quote:

Then you don't understand what a gift we have in our free will.

Well, since their "gift" got them punished in the most severe way possibleand since all the rest of humanity was also punished

perhaps it is you who really does not understand the "gift of free will."

In any case, if the god was too ignorant or evil to consider the problem with giving humans free will without benefit of the knowledge of good and evilthe god is too stupid to be deserving of worship.

Quote:

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would have no need for the bible.

Without superstitionthere would be no need for a Bible either.

The story is absurdand any reasonable person would come away disgusted with the god.

Quote:

The entire history of man is a consequence of that rebellion and the bible, woven into that history, clearly tells what God has done and intends to do so that his purpose for the earth will become.

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

0 Replies

Neo wrote:

Quote:

The perfect conscience is innate. God, having created Adam and Eve, programmed them with an aversion to sin. Adam did not have to wonder if it was OK to steal or commit adultery; He was incapable of it.

I see. I must have missed that passage.

Would you furnish a citation of the biblical passage upon which you base this gratuitous, self-serving rationalization.

Quote:

If this was all there was to it, Adam and Eve would have been perfect robots and we would all be alive today living happy lives in the smiley farm and life would be beautiful all day long.

No free will - Everything perfect - So what?

Ahhhso you see that not only is the story itself sillyyour explanation of the "perfect conscience" is even sillier unless you dream up this "free will" thing.

Quote:

So God gave them the choice of whether or not they would continue with His arrangement. He warned them the consequence would be death; but they disobeyed anyway.

Yup. And the Bible is absolutely clear that they did not know the difference between right and wrongbetween good and evil when the god did this.

You cannot get away from that, Neobecause the Bible tells us that the forbidden fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil."

In fact, the serpent and Eve even discussed the issue.

"No, God knows well that the moment you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you will be like gods who know what is good and what is bad." Genesis 3:5

And your god acknowledged the same thing, when it said:

"See? The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" Genesis 3:22

There is no doubt that the Bible has Adam and Eve in the Garden without knowledge of what is good and badso your rationalizations and talk about "perfect conscience" is nonsense.

Quote:

You think an omniscient God would, of necessity, know how such a choice would turn out?

I think a 6 year old human would be able to guess it!

Quote:

Do you believe that God must necessarily have known that Satan would pick that time to incite the rebellion?

Keep that "believing" nonsense to yourself, Neo. I don't do it.

But if you are asking me if I think a god would test humanity in the way the fairytale tells usI will only laugh. The god certainly should have protected the couple from Satan since the god had already put them into this mess without the protection of knowledge of good and bad.

And since you people keep spouting on and on about how your god knows each beat of each butterfly's wingthe god should have known Satan was working on Adam and Eveand should have put a stop to it.

Unless, of course, the entire thing was a set-upa sting.

Quote:

Then you don't understand what a gift we have in our free will.

Well, since their "gift" got them punished in the most severe way possibleand since all the rest of humanity was also punished

perhaps it is you who really does not understand the "gift of free will."

In any case, if the god was too ignorant or evil to consider the problem with giving humans free will without benefit of the knowledge of good and evilthe god is too stupid to be deserving of worship.

Quote:

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would have no need for the bible.

Without superstitionthere would be no need for a Bible either.

The story is absurdand any reasonable person would come away disgusted with the god.

Quote:

The entire history of man is a consequence of that rebellion and the bible, woven into that history, clearly tells what God has done and intends to do so that his purpose for the earth will become.

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
mesquite wrote:
real life wrote:
So you believe in the Big Bang. Matter and energy interacted in such a way to produce the physical universe that we now see, etc. We are all familiar with the idea.

So where did that matter and energy come from?

Whatever rationalization you can come up with for where your creator came from will work equally well for the above question.....

Do I understand you to imply that belief in an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation) and belief in eternally pre-existent matter/energy which by blind chance produced the universe (the Big Bang) are ideas which carry EQUAL validity?

I doubt that this is what you meant, but your meaning was rather vague.

c.i.'s post reminded me that I had missed replying to this one.

real life, I am saying that if it is valid for you to conjur up "an eternally pre-existent Creator whose actions produced the universe (Creation)" then it is equally valid to propose an eternally pre-existant universe that needed no creator.

I'll go along with equally valid. I think both the idea of Creation by an incredibly intelligent and eternally pre-existent God and the idea of random generation of complex systems and organisms by eternally pre-existent matter and blind chance are both ideas that are statements of faith, since no human being has actually observed either or has anything more direct than circumstantial evidence and inference to support the idea.

Thanks for negating most of science and Man's struggle to understand the world in one sentence.

You are welcome. Doesn't science require observable, verifiable data?

Yes, but the phenomenon under study doesn't have to be directly observable, e.g. atoms. Fossils are observable. The adaptability of bacteria to medicines is observable.

When the phenom is not directly observable we draw inferences from data. Atoms, at least, can be experimented with. What experiment has even come close to reproducing the Big Bang so that we may obtain even circumstantial evidence or infer anything, much less observe it directly?

Same question for showing one creature changing into another kind of creature (over whatever period of time you would like to postulate) ?

Yes fossils are observable. We have direct evidence that something died. We do not have direct evidence what it's predecessors looked like, how they lived, etc. Those are inferences, often put forward on the basis of assumption ( 'we know evolution is true, therefore where does this fossil likely fit in?' ).

Adaptability of bacteria, and humans, and nearly every other organism to external dangers ( antibiotics are dangerous to bacteria, bacteria can be dangerous to humans, etc) is observable. What is not observed and never has been is bacteria changing into anything other than bacteria.

When your body fights off and resists bacteria have you evolved? No, your body had that ability. It didn't invent it on the fly.

You can only guess that at some distant point in the past that humans (or their ancestors) DID NOT have the ability to fight off bacteria and that one of them DID invent it on the fly , thus passing it down . But that is a guess. There is NO evidence that this was ever the case, is there?

0 Replies

Quote:

"See? The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" Genesis 3:22

The Garden of Eden was the Earth before humans had acquired the concept of "good and evil". A world of of innocent things consuming each other and living without the need to justify everything.

The people who wrote the story of Eden seemed to know that there was a time on this planet before mankind had the capacity to judge good and evil, and they knew that when we acquired that concept the garden would be lost to us.

But eating the apple was never a choice for us, it was inevitible. Indeed, if it were a choice, most of us would choose it again this day, rather than live our lives like the simpler animals. And if there is a god, then it's choice to make our destiny possible was put in place long before the atoms of the Earth had cooled from the first instants of time.

The people who wrote the story of Eden seem to have known more about the history of mankind as an evolving animal, than many people today. How sad is that.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.

I see you're working on your post count again, Frank. Tell me; how does conscience work?

rosborne979 wrote:

Quote:
"See? The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad!" Genesis 3:22

The Garden of Eden was the Earth before humans had acquired the concept of "good and evil". A world of of innocent things consuming each other and living without the need to justify everything.

The people who wrote the story of Eden seemed to know that there was a time on this planet before mankind had the capacity to judge good and evil, and they knew that when we acquired that concept the garden would be lost to us.

But eating the apple was never a choice for us, it was inevitible (sic). Indeed, if it were a choice, most of us would choose it again this day, rather than live our lives like the simpler animals. And if there is a god, then it's choice to make our destiny possible was put in place long before the atoms of the Earth had cooled from the first instants of time.

The people who wrote the story of Eden seem to have known more about the history of mankind as an evolving animal, than many people today. How sad is that.

Like Frank, you read into the story the straw men which give credence to your self serving philosophy. Show us where the bible supports your idea that failure was inevitable.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
I see you're working on your post count again, Frank. Tell me; how does conscience work?

I suppose someone like you would actually consider "post count" to be important. Hey...little lives need something to brighten them up.

I could not care less about post count.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
Frank Apisa wrote:
The story tells us that the god of the Bible cannot be trusted.nothing more.
I see you're working on your post count again, Frank. Tell me; how does conscience work?

I suppose someone like you would actually consider "post count" to be important. Hey...little lives need something to brighten them up.

I could not care less about post count.

Me neither

Neither

Neither

Laughing

Tell me; how does conscience work?

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Like Frank, you read into the story the straw men which give credence to your self serving philosophy. Show us where the bible supports your idea that failure was inevitable.

Reality tells me that our rise to consciousness was inevitible. What's written in the bible just confirms for me that the people who wrote that particular passage recognized the same reality that I do.

And you're standing on pretty shaky ground telling me that "my" reading of the bible gives credence to "my" self serving philosophy, when you base the whole meaning of your life on the self serving philosophy that you glean from the Bible. If the Bible is anything more than just a text, it must be considered the living word of god, and as such, anything I get from it is the message god wants to send me.

You're being hypocritical to claim that your interpretation is any more valid than mine.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Me neither

Neither

Neither

Even I, who could not care less about post count, realize that the number of words in a post does not increase post count...so whatever attempt at humor you were trying here doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Tell me; how does conscience work?

Not really sure.

But to suppose that an allegorical character described as being totally oblivious to the difference between right and wrong...between good and evil...

...could make a choice based on "conscience"...

...is desperation.

By the waythe dictionary definition of "conscience" is:

1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts c : the part of the superego in psychoanalysis that transmits commands and admonitions to the ego.

Considering that Adam and Eve had been deprived of the knowledge of what is good and evilright or wrong

how could they possibly have a sense of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of their conductor have a feeling of obligation to do right or to be good?

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter Wrote:

Quote:

He's the alpha and the omega....you dummy! LOL

Dummy? Oh, that's nice. What a kind and gentle person you seem to be. How very sweet of you to offer your opinion of me in such a noble manner. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know