Evolution? How?

farmerman wrote:

wait a minute. You mean that theres no Easter Bunny?

Now, relax, I didn't say THAT; even I hold some things sacred.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

wait a minute. You mean that theres no Easter Bunny?

Well, there used to be, but I kinda ate him.

0 Replies

RexRed never follows through with any on point congruent cogent thought process or dialogue, however it appears he has learned to type and use a computer. It's eerie

0 Replies

Rex

Can you prove there's a God or is this something you want to believe in because you like the story?

0 Replies

What are you trying to prove xingu? If somebody believes in God then God exists for them.They don't need proof.

If you don't believe in God it's just the same.You don't need proof either.

Is it just a claim that those who don't believe in God are superior to those who do.I can't understand what's exercising your mind on a personal level.

I would think myself that a society that believes in God, even though He's only in 6th place behind money,greed,the flag,apple pie and Mum,is likely to be a superior society to a society that doesn't and thus,inevitably,swaps ego for God in the list and shunts it up to top spot.

There are other aspects to "The Story" besides believing it.

0 Replies

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...

So it's just a concept.

0 Replies

Re: whoa!

aperson wrote:

I did say don't ask me the details... COS I DON'T KNOW THEM!!!

Then your evidence is inadmissible.

aperson wrote:

And the spiritual eye (obviously you don't have one, otherwise you would know) is the ability to see beyond what science can explain, and not limiting yourself to that which has solid proof.

Then the spiritual eye could also be crazyness or delusion, how would you know the difference?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Science does not need to explain religion but without proof they cannot deny God irrefutably... but they do.

No they don't.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

There are other aspects to "The Story" besides believing it.

Beyond its own invalid claim and the fear, superstition, conceit and arrogance of those who endorse "The Story", no there are not "other aspects to 'The Story'"; "The Story" serves no function beyond its own promotion and perpetuation.

[quote="Rex, Red Herring monger "par excellance","]Science does not need to explain religion but without proof they cannot deny God irrefutably... but they do.[/quote]
Demonstrate, objectively and in forensically valid manner, that such be true of Science. Then, if you would, please, demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that ID-iocy be other than a religionist proposition. Finally, if its not too much trouble, when you have done that, demonstrate objectively and in forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstition.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you beleive in God?

I see no reason to do so . . . nor to deny that somebody's imaginary friend exists. Having no reason to believe that anyone's imaginary friend exists, there is no good reason to conduct a discussion from the premise that such a being exists and that it created the cosmos. Which comes closer to being germane to the subject of evolution than about half the drivel which has been posted in this thread.

0 Replies

Re: both?

I'm the other one wrote:

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.

And you have no reason to assume anything about what i personally do or do not believe based on what you are pleased to describe as how i feel. You are construing from this statement on my part that i "believe" what i've described. I do not. I have no reason to believe that your, or anyone else's, imaginary friend exists. Acknowledging that a theory of evolution does not stipulate cosmic origins, and that it is possible for people to believe in their imaginary friend of choice, and accept a theory of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of known life forms on this planet does not constitute an endorsement of said imaginary friend beliefs.

Quote:

Well then...that canges things.

Absolutely nothing about the state of my understanding of a theory of evolution, nor my attitude toward (an attitude of contempt) imaginary friend superstitions, has changed since you appeared in this thread. (EDIT: Other than that i've learned interesting details from Pauligirl's links about decaying radioactive isotopes.)

Quote:

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?

I have no good reason to think that any of these which you mention were "created."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Setanta wrote:
Religious obscurantism and the will to disbelief . . .
I guess your right, technically.

Do you beleive in God?

I see no reason to do so . . . nor to deny that somebody's imaginary friend exists. Having no reason to believe that anyone's imaginary friend exists, there is no good reason to conduct a discussion from the premise that such a being exists and that it created the cosmos. Which comes closer to being germane to the subject of evolution than about half the drivel which has been posted in this thread.

oky doke

0 Replies

I wouldn't even tell Elwood P. Dowd that Harvey doesn't exist. Nor Maureen O'Hara that Santa doesn't exist. As far as fantasies go, those are two examples just as viable as the Bible.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What are you trying to prove xingu? If somebody believes in God then God exists for them.They don't need proof.

Yes they do if they're going to push ID! If creationist and ID'ers are going to tell us that God created all of the universe and life in it then show me the God. If you can't present the God you have no argument. If there is no evidence for a God then there is no evidence anything was created by a God.

spendius wrote:

I would think myself that a society that believes in God, even though He's only in 6th place behind money,greed,the flag,apple pie and Mum,is likely to be a superior society to a society that doesn't and thus,inevitably,swaps ego for God in the list and shunts it up to top spot.

I believe Europe has less of a belief in God then America and I don't see them as being less superior than us. I see the Muslim world as have a far stronger belief in their God and religion than Europe or America. Are they superior to us?

0 Replies

This recently appeared in the news.

Quote:

Everest Expedition Uncovers Exotic Species
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 April 2006
09:00 am ET

Mount Everest and the Himalaya mountain range conjure images of yaks and Sherpas loaded with heavy packs. But tucked into the cold shadows of the world's tallest mountain are biologically diverse hotspots filled with poorly known plants and animals found nowhere else on the globe.
Scientists from Conservation International and Disney's Animal Kingdom recently launched a two-month scientific expedition into six regions of the Tibetan "Sacred Lands" in the mountains of Southwest China and Nepal.
Today they announced the discovery of a pocket of the world rich in extraordinary flora and fauna.
"The fact that we found so many new species in such a harsh environment, as well as documented several rare and endangered species is good news for these two regions," said Leeanne Alonso, the expedition's lead scientist and vice president of the CI's Rapid Assessment Program.
Giant hornets so deadly locals call them "Yak Killers"
Jumping "Yeti" mice
A new grasshopper species in which the males hitch piggy-back rides on the females
Baby blue-faced golden monkeys, the region's largest primates
Hamster-like pikas that eat their own feces
A couple of new frog species, eight new insect species, and ten new species of ants to add the more than 11,000 already known.
The full results of the expedition will be shared with numerous governments, scientists, and environmental and conservation organizations to develop strategies to protect the many unique species of the region.
"Local efforts by Tibetan communities through their 'Sacred Lands' are helping to prevent these plants and animals from going extinct and demonstrate that cultural values can play an important role in conservation," Alonso said.
Disney's film crew was rolling tape during the mission for a 2-hour documentary that will premiere April 15th at 8:00 PM (ET) on Discovery's Animal Planet.

So let's go back to Noah. Real says that the mountains were raised after the flood. He doesn't believe the flood waters were 30,000 feet deep. I think he got that from his science book; the Bible.

If that's the case where did these animals come from? They didn't exist before the flood. The environment they live in didn't exist. It wasn't created until the flood waters receded. Nor for that manner did any high mountain environment in which specialized animals live exist.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

This recently appeared in the news.

Quote:
Everest Expedition Uncovers Exotic Species
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 April 2006
09:00 am ET

Mount Everest and the Himalaya mountain range conjure images of yaks and Sherpas loaded with heavy packs. But tucked into the cold shadows of the world's tallest mountain are biologically diverse hotspots filled with poorly known plants and animals found nowhere else on the globe.
Scientists from Conservation International and Disney's Animal Kingdom recently launched a two-month scientific expedition into six regions of the Tibetan "Sacred Lands" in the mountains of Southwest China and Nepal.
Today they announced the discovery of a pocket of the world rich in extraordinary flora and fauna.
"The fact that we found so many new species in such a harsh environment, as well as documented several rare and endangered species is good news for these two regions," said Leeanne Alonso, the expedition's lead scientist and vice president of the CI's Rapid Assessment Program.
Giant hornets so deadly locals call them "Yak Killers"
Jumping "Yeti" mice
A new grasshopper species in which the males hitch piggy-back rides on the females
Baby blue-faced golden monkeys, the region's largest primates
Hamster-like pikas that eat their own feces
A couple of new frog species, eight new insect species, and ten new species of ants to add the more than 11,000 already known.
The full results of the expedition will be shared with numerous governments, scientists, and environmental and conservation organizations to develop strategies to protect the many unique species of the region.
"Local efforts by Tibetan communities through their 'Sacred Lands' are helping to prevent these plants and animals from going extinct and demonstrate that cultural values can play an important role in conservation," Alonso said.
Disney's film crew was rolling tape during the mission for a 2-hour documentary that will premiere April 15th at 8:00 PM (ET) on Discovery's Animal Planet.

So let's go back to Noah. Real says that the mountains were raised after the flood. He doesn't believe the flood waters were 30,000 feet deep. I think he got that from his science book; the Bible.

If that's the case where did these animals come from? They didn't exist before the flood. The environment they live in didn't exist. It wasn't created until the flood waters receded. Nor for that manner did any high mountain environment in which specialized animals live exist.

Why do you assume that they did not exist? What evidence is there that they COULD NOT have existed prior to a catastrophe such as the Flood?

Simply because this local environment has changed (we all agree on that, we disagree on the timeline), doesn't mean that animals that NOW live there have ONLY lived there.

Perhaps at one time these were very common creatures but now for various reasons, their only remaining (known) existence is here. And they may exist elsewhere; we didn't even know they were here until now, right?

Your post is full of assumptions of what 'could not have' happened, but I leave these possibilities open. Your argument is from silence.

0 Replies

You need a trip to the Galapagos Islands.

0 Replies

Re: whoa!

rosborne979 wrote:

aperson wrote:
I did say don't ask me the details... COS I DON'T KNOW THEM!!!

Then your evidence is inadmissible.

aperson wrote:
And the spiritual eye (obviously you don't have one, otherwise you would know) is the ability to see beyond what science can explain, and not limiting yourself to that which has solid proof.

Then the spiritual eye could also be craziness or delusion, how would you know the difference?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know