Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 05:06 pm
Manchester England, England,
Across the Atlantic Sea
And I'm a genius, genius
And I don't believe in God
And I don't believe that God
Believes in Claude
That's me . . .

Can we sing it like this?
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 05:10 pm
someone wrote
Can someone tell me how to do that "someone wrote" thing?
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 05:12 pm
never mind
Never mind I worked it out. You press the quote button.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 05:38 pm
Howdy, aperson, and welcome to A2K - glad you found the place, and glad you figured out the Quote Button. You might wanna take a look at the A2K FAQ and the A2K Help Forum; click the apprpriate color-formatted words down in the signature box at the bottom of my posts to go directly to either one.

Your earlier question, along the lines of "Has anyone brought this up before", concerning simultaneous belief in a deity or deities and in evolution has been addressed here - several times, in fact on this and related threads. It comes up every few hundred posts.

Its not so much a matter of "believing" in both, as it is perfectly possible to believe in a deity or deities, a condition predicated on mere belief, something endorsed or accepted in the absence of evidence, and to understand and acknowledge that science in no way addresses the supernatural, neither attacks nor endorses the supernatural, but rather, and by definition and practice, seeks natural explanations for observed phenomena. Science has no concern with religion (other than as an aspect of philosophical, anthropological, and psychological study), but some religionists perceive science to be a threat to the religionist proposition. That's the religionists' problem, one of their own making, and a foolish, ignorant, misguided battle they've chosen to initiate but which they cannot win.

There is a huge difference between theory, in the scientific sense, and guesses. Any creator myth, anything stemming from any creator myth, is at best a guess. A valid scientific theory, on the other hand, is a rigorously tested, ongoingly confirmed or revised, cross-discipline-corroborated, accepted-best-explanation of a thing, condition, or state of being consistent with scientifically determined laws, not inconsistent with observation, logic, or reason, is testable and falsifiable, and is as far from a guess as one can get. A scientific theory is the best currently achievable answer given the currently available evidence. Nothing in science precludes the existence of a deity or deities, nothing in science indicates the existence of a deity or deities; the question of deity is beyond the scope of science.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 06:38 pm
I'm the other one wrote:


Thanks Pauligirl.

What I always wondered is how they can carbon date things back this far. I know there's other forms of dating, but isn't this one of the most popular ways?


Carbon dating is not used for fossils.
http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/Pages/CarbonDatingBack.html

The absolute age of a fossil is determined by dating the fossil with radioactive isotopes. Radioactive isotopes have unstable nuclei that break down, or decay, and form other elements. These isotopes decay at a constant, known rate
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/index.html

P
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 07:18 pm
Amigo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you beleive in God?


Define "God".
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 07:42 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you believe in God?


Define "God".


God is all powerful, all knowing and everywhere present...
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 08:29 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Nothing in science precludes the existence of a deity or deities, nothing in science indicates the existence of a deity or deities; the question of deity is beyond the scope of science.


Did Marie Curie exist or was she just a fairy tale? Were Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein fables?

Yet apples still fall to the ground and things go "bang" in the night...

Were Abraham, Moses or Jesus real people? Yet people still believe in their God...

Timber I think you have experience in what you have been taught and you believe it and things are testable. But you have not (at least admittedly) ever turned your life over to God and lived as a "believer" so you have no real understanding experientially.

The fundamental reasoning behind Christianity is "power or energy". So using power and the analogy is only augmented by our understanding of power on a physical level.

The equation goes like this.

The purpose of the Christian conversion is to receive spiritual power.

Christianity in the Bible couldn't be any more scientific.

Just like when you plug in an electrical appliance it will not function without power so the human will not reach full potential if they are not positively energized.

Once a "believer" receives this "power" within it may lay dormant. It will still create an environment for improvement but it's true potential may never be realized in this life.

The power may lay dormant and the mind may regress even deeper into despair. Why does not this power just make the believer better? Because it works with scientific laws. One must properly operated the spirit. Much like a computer the spirit can be user friendly but it's inner workings must be understood in order to cause the spirit to move. So when the spirits operations and manifestations are intimately known then the paths of communication through prayer, knowledge, wisdom are opened to the mind. The mind is renewed by this energized power and God exceeds our expectations.

Now this is a journey into the spirit Timber that I do not know that you have made yet. If it is really based upon a real form of (unknown) energy that one receives and you if have not received it you could never "test" this energy or observe how it has opened your consciousness to greater understanding of the WHOLE universe around you.

You cannot operate and observe something that you have not received first.

Smile
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 08:48 pm
RexRed wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Amigo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you believe in God?


Define "God".


God is all powerful, all knowing and everywhere present...


Amen!
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 08:54 pm
Re: both?
RexRed wrote:
aperson wrote:
Hi i'm new.

This may have been suggested (I havn't checked all the pages), but why can't you believe in evolution and god simultaneously? I know someone who believes in what science can explain, and let's God explain what science cannot.


Then this argument would not exist so creationists and evolutionists put up these fake walls to perpetuate the discussion...


Both the creationists and the evolutionists here misinterpret the Bible...

Welcome to A2k, I am one who believes in both evolution and creation... I don't know of anyone else who I have come across in this thread who can even come close to that position... So I am the oddball for this...

They don't see how odd they all seem to me...


Hi Rex!

You're actualy not that uncommon from the other forums I've visited as of late. Smile
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 08:59 pm
Re: both?
Setanta wrote:
aperson wrote:
Hi i'm new.

This may have been suggested (I havn't checked all the pages), but why can't you believe in evolution and god simultaneously? I know someone who believes in what science can explain, and let's God explain what science cannot.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with this thesis. A theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins. Young earth creationists would have everyone believe that it does, because the geological time scale which is one of the foundational assumptions of a theory of evolution is in direct contradiction to a young earth creationism view point, i.e., that the world's age numbers in thousands, and not billions, of years. Therefore, the more fervent of the fundamentalist young earth creationists attempt to rabble rouse by claiming that "the big bang" is essential to a theory of evolution, and that science wants to disprove the existence of god. They want to alarm the faithful.

It is entirely possible to believe that a deity created the cosmos, and that evolution is the mechanism which said deity employed to develop life forms on this planet. Religion and science can co-exist, except when the religion is unswervingly devoted to a young earth creationist view.


I had no idea you felt this way Set.

Well then...that canges things.

So...do you think it possible that when things were created such as flowers, the sun, etc...it was done thousands of years in between?
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:05 pm
Lightwizard wrote:
On a public forum, you are writing to everyone on that forum and anyone can reply. If you want private messages to a particular person not available to public view, use primate messaging...er, I mean private messaging.


LOL, Thanks Wizard.

Actualy, I was finished.

"It is finished"

I don't have pm privelages yet anywho.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:05 pm
Chumly wrote:
I'm the other one wrote:
Thanks Pauligirl.

What I always wondered is how they can carbon date things back this far. I know there's other forms of dating, but isn't this one of the most popular ways?
I hear internet dating works well


LOL!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:17 pm
Did we all come from Adam or only those born of God's image?

Is Genesis in the Bible emphasizing the physical beginning or the spiritual conscious beginning of humans?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:38 pm
RexRed wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
Nothing in science precludes the existence of a deity or deities, nothing in science indicates the existence of a deity or deities; the question of deity is beyond the scope of science.


Did Marie Curie exist or was she just a fairy tale? Were Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein fables?

Yet apples still fall to the ground and things go "bang" in the night...

Were Abraham, Moses or Jesus real people? Yet people still believe in their God...

Meaningless non sequitur, as pertinent in context as stating disposable diapers are innefficient as floatation devices, yet people still apply them to infants.


Quote:
Timber I think you have experience in what you have been taught and you believe it and things are testable.

I have experience in what I've learned, and among that which I have learned is to test everything, to find both that which will and that which will not stand to scrutiny.


Quote:
But you have not (at least admittedly) ever turned your life over to God and lived as a "believer" so you have no real understanding experientially.

An unwarranted, and incidentally incorrect, assumption on your part. No point detailing the chain of discovery that led to my liberation from the intellectual and emotional slavery of religionist groupthink, but I find amusing a personal ephinany occasioned in part by Paul the Apostle, 1 Corinthians, 13:11, and in part by a song from a Disney cartoon:

PETER PAN:
Are you ready for today's lesson?

ALL:
Yes, sir!

PETER PAN:
Listen to your father. Repeat after me:
I won't grow up,
----I won't grow up
I don't want to go to school.
----I don't want to go to school
Just to learn to be a parrot,
----Just to learn to be a parrot
And recite a silly rule.
----And recite a silly rule
If growing up means
It would be beneath my dignity to climb a tree,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
Not I,
Not me!
Not me!
I won't grow up,
----I won't grow up
I don't want to wear a tie.
----I don't want to wear a tie
Or a serious expression
----Or a serious expression
In the middle of July.
----In the middle of July
And if it means I must prepare
To shoulder burdens with a worried air,
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me,
Not I,
Not me!
So there!
Never gonna be a man,
I won't!
Like to see somebody try
And make me.
Anyone who wants to try
And make me turn into a man,
Catch me if you can.
I won't grow up.
----I wont grow up
I will never even try
----I will never even try
I will do what Peter tells me
----I will do what Peter tells me
And I'll never ask him why
----And I'll never ask him why

We won't grow up!
----We won't grow up
We will never grow a day
----We will never grow a day
And if someone tries to make it
----And if someone tries to make it
We will simply run away
----We will simply run away

I won't grow up!
----I won't grow up
No, I promise that I won't
----No, I promise that I won't
I will stay a boy forever
----I will stay a boy forever
And be banished if I don't!
----And be banished if I don't

And Never Land will always be
The home of youth and joy
And liberty
I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up
Not me!
Not me!
Not I!
I wont!
No sir!
Not me!
Not me!


Some of us do grow up, some don't.


Quote:
The fundamental reasoning behind Christianity is "power or energy". So using power and the analogy is only augmented by our understanding of power on a physical level.

The equation goes like this.

The purpose of the Christian conversion is to receive spiritual power.

Christianity in the Bible couldn't be any more scientific.

Just like when you plug in an electrical appliance it will not function without power so the human will not reach full potential if they are not positively energized.

Once a "believer" receives this "power" within it may lay dormant. It will still create an environment for improvement but it's true potential may never be realized in this life.

The power may lay dormant and the mind may regress even deeper into despair. Why does not this power just make the believer better? Because it works with scientific laws. One must properly operated the spirit. Much like a computer the spirit can be user friendly but it's inner workings must be understood in order to cause the spirit to move. So when the spirits operations and manifestations are intimately known then the paths of communication through prayer, knowledge, wisdom are opened to the mind. The mind is renewed by this energized power and God exceeds our expectations.

Now this is a journey into the spirit Timber that I do not know that you have made yet. If it is really based upon a real form of (unknown) energy that one receives and you if have not received it you could never "test" this energy or observe how it has opened your consciousness to greater understanding of the WHOLE universe around you.

You cannot operate and observe something that you have not received first.

Smile

In other, simpler words, "Unless one accepts (insert brand of) religious faith, one cannot know (insert brand of) religious faith, unless one knows (insert brand of) religious faith, one cannot receive (insert brand of) religious faith, and without (insert brand of) religious faith, one cannot receive (insert brand of) religious faith". That's a come-from-nowhere, go-nowhere circular proposition.

Some grow up, put aside the things of children, and meet life head on, head up, taking it for what it is, come what may, making the best of it, others cling to fairytales, fantasies, and fabrications, tucking their heads behind the cloak of myth and mystery, by their superstitions shielding themselves from the realities of life.

Demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:44 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I'm the other one wrote:
OKay, I have a quick question before going back and responding to the others.

Do you evolutionists still go by these things to support your theory:

Whales and snakes having hind legs

Several cetaecean species do have vestigial leg and foot bones, detached from the contiguous skeketal structure, embedded within the flesh of the flippers and tails. Numerous species of snakes do have pelvic girdles, and evidence structure of a nature which only could have been due to attachment of lower appendages - legs, and consequently, feet.
Quote:
fetuses have gill slits

In the early stages of development, all mammalian fetuses evidence a gill-like structure, morphologically identical to such structure in contemporary fish and amphibians, which in various species proceeds to express in a variety of ways as the organism matures in utero. This universal characteristic is not exclusive to mammals, it occurs without exeption in avians as well.
Quote:
the peppered moth
only ID-iots cling to the notion, actual science determined and exposed the error of that bit of misinterpretation long ago.
Quote:
the horse evolution chart
Not sure what you're getting at here; the appearance and further development of the genus Hippus clearly shows the relationship among and shared heritage of horses, hippos, cetaceans, and other critters both extant and extinct. There is no doubt or confusion anywhere but among those determined to attempt defense of ID-iocy.
Quote:
our appendix is not needed
So what? Neither is our hair. Another red herring.
Quote:
we evolved from fish
A red herring of the misconstrual school; it is clear all land animals derive from an aquatic proto-ancestor.
Quote:
[Darwism
Yet another misconstrual - a silly labeling of established scientific fact, a labeling perpetrated by those who sense their medeival superstitions threatened by evidence, logic, and reason.
Quote:
we evolved from fish
We've already been there - but then that you might revisit the notion is unsurprising; when chasing one's own tail, one of necessity repeatedly encounters the same things in one's travels.
Quote:
we came from monkeys
Yet another red herring - this a red herring of conscious duplicity; no such assertion is made nor even implied by any legitimate interpretation of the evolutionary record. Only ID-iots persist in the nonsense of trotting out this particular bit of ignorance.

Quote:
and do you think carbon dating is always and/or 100% accurate?
Irrelevant and non sequitur; there are many methods of carbon dating, and many other methods of dating - the margin-of-error of all is well understood, accounted for, and acknowledged openly. What is most pertinent is the congruence and agreement of diverse dating methodologies, which when employed alongside one another in examination of a given sample serve more than adequately to confirm the accuracy of each, each within its own limitations.

Of particular note is that ID-iots, as opposed to producing any legitimate evidence whatsoever supportive of their absurd proposition, succeed by their protestations, based on nothing more than their erroneous, superstitious, assumptive preferences, predicated upon the central absurdity of their foundational illicit premis, only in exposing their own ignorance of science, consequent to their rejection of critical thought and intellectual honesty.


Thank you for clearing that up! Shocked

I'm so glad to hear you don't cling to some of those ideas.

I musta wanted that fish thing to come across loud and clear. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:50 pm
wandeljw wrote:
I'm The Other One,

There is a common misunderstanding about man being descended from apes. Actually, man and ape share a common ancestor. That common ancestor has long become extinct. 98% of all life forms that have existed on earth are now extinct.


I did not know this, thanks! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 09:53 pm
Re: bible
aperson wrote:
Hey don't go throwing wild accusations at me. It may interest you that I do actually have a Bible sitting on my bedside table right now.


Are you at a motel room?

No wait..those are IN the bedside table usually.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Apr, 2006 10:11 pm
Thinking of cetaceans, the useless human appendix, and herrings, a favored food for many cetaceans, why might, in common with all other mammals, cetaceans have hair?
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Apr, 2006 12:39 am
both eyes
Just a point I want to make.

The person who I talked about earlier is a chaplain who also has a degree in science (don't ask me the details because I don't know them), so he has beliefs in both. He recently gave a sermon in which he talked about "using both eyes" i.e. your spiritual and scientific. So think about this those of you who have a one-sided (or one-eyed) view.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 430
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 11:59:25