Evolution? How?

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?' ).

Not magic, Brandon, they call it a "creator/god" or "intelligent design." LOL

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not magic, Brandon, they call it a "creator/god" or "intelligent design." LOL

Kind of weird being friends on some topics and enemies in others, isn't it?

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.

neologist wrote:

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 way…the 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 evil…right or wrong…

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

neo, Most of your projections are ridiculous. You would be ahead of the game if you refrained from such foolishness. Trying to determine any individual's morals by your example - is just plain stupid.

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:

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 way…the 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 evil…right or wrong…

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

Frank; I am sure you are a fine fellow and an excellent neighbor. How does your conscience respond in a situation like this?
Your neighbor gets out of his car and walks toward his house. As he closes the car door you notice that a piece of paper blows out and, without his knowledge, flies into your yard. You think nothing of it until a short time later when you discover it is a $5 bill. What is the faculty that motivates you to return it to your neighbor? You don't even have to think about it do you? I know that must be the kind of person you are. Am I right? You rely on your conscience.

A perfect conscience would never give us cause for regret. That is the conscience that was built into Adam and Eve. How do I know? Because instead of countless pages of law, Adam and Eve were given only one command, the command that represented their acceptance or rejection of God's arrangement.

Well, I guess I am stupid then because I understand what Neo was saying about the conscience.

The god of the Bible, Neo...the god that terrifies you and that you pretend to love and worship...

...denied Adam and Eve the knowledge of right and wrong...of good and evil.

There was no way, according to the fairytale, that they knew they were doing anything wrong when they disobeyed. There was absolutely no way for them to know that "disobedience" is wrong...or is evil.

That is according to the fairytale.

It is a built in part of the fairytale...and ESSENTIAL ingredient of the fairytale...because the fruit of the tree was denied to them in part because it would give them that knowledge.

C.I.,

You know, you like to get in there and make little jabs and call people dummy's and ridiculous, etc. I think you are just plain rude. We have not called you names or ridiculed you. Why do you feel the need to do that? Does it make you feel like you are playing with the big boys?

Momma Angel wrote:

C.I.,

You know, you like to get in there and make little jabs and call people dummy's and ridiculous, etc. I think you are just plain rude. We have not called you names or ridiculed you. Why do you feel the need to do that? Does it make you feel like you are playing with the big boys?

Actually, he's probably ticked off about my doggy doo question.

Neo,

Well, when he doesn't answer me, I take it that I have made my point. So, no biggy!

Bar-b-q? Beef or pork?