Evolution? How?

Rex, science is dispassionate, objective, derived from and driven soley by humankind's need, will, and ability to explore, discover, learn, understand, and use that which comprises the stuff of the universe in which humankind finds itself. Science of necessity has its own ethic - the ethic of truth as determined through fact. Science permits and advances technology, technology has no ethic, it has only uses and effects. Unethical humans can and do put technology to ill purpose, a happenstance having nothing to do with science. You'll get no argument that the perversions of humans are proximate to the ills done in the name of religion, just as there can be no argument the ills brought through the unethical exploitation of technology are wholly the product of human perversion. Science has nothing to do with either set of ills, though religion often plays in both.

0 Replies

"LW's disbelief reveals his claim." Disbelief in what? What claim? I've made no claim. To be sure, disbelief in you, the self-annointed rebirth of Christ on A2K. I don't believe in your ideas, hyposthesis (such as they are), theories, extrapolations because I don't listen to the town fool babbling atop his soap box. Is there a park nearby with a good crowd you can go to, start your oration, and boost up your already over-inflated self-esteem?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
maintaining consistent form, RR wrote:

So you are saying God does exist? Now you have finally managed to confuse me...

It is not true that LW has said either that there exists or does not exist a God, though it is true you appear to be quite confused, perhaps insuperably so.

Now, as to claims, you claim there to be a God, and further that you have some specific relationship with this putative deity. You have established neither premise, nor have you defended either, you have merely presented them.

LW does not say ''There is no God'', LW says "Demonstrate there be a God". That you fail to do, and absent that, any related, thereon dependent, further effort on your part is futile - to the point of being laughable.

Now look who is entangled in sophistry...

LW's disbelief reveals his claim.

Oh, bullshit again. Demonstrate sophistry within my cited statement, and demonstrate any belief or disbelief - apart from perhaps a clearly expressed, reasoned, logical, evidence-based rejection of your manner of argument - expressed by LW.

That one may declare he or she not believe as some other does not constitute disbelief, it constitutes disagreement. it is you, Rex, that is saddled with and blinded by belief; your beliefs is functionally unaware of dispassionate, objective reality. Not immune to it, not exempt from it, just unaware of it, unable or unwilling (or both) to come to grips with it. The universe of some is as they imagine and wish it to be, the universe of others is as they observe and understand it to be.

in the past hundred years, science has advanced the human condition beyond anything achieved over the preceeding dozen millenia, not altogether without mishap or unintended peril, realized or not, and not uniformly among all the peoples of the planet, but none the less humankind on the whole today is healthier, more knowledgeable, more technologically capable, more free, more prosperous than ever before in humankind's history, with promise only of yet undiscovered, but concretely realizeable advances to come. Whether over the past dozen millenia or the past century, what has religion brought humankind beyond assumptions, myths, and speculative, unrealized, corporeally unrealizeable promises?

Demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith be differentiable from superstion.

0 Replies

Well, EB, I for one would be glad to see the thread return to the topic of evolution, and continue.

But it seems that every time it does-- timber, CI and a few others are there to sidetrack it.

Perhaps they don't want it discussed.

0 Replies

real, Your problem is very simple; evolution has been discussed ad nauseum, but it still hasn't sunk into your brain - and never will.

0 Replies

I would submit that Rex also does not want it discussed, because he tries so hard to inject a God where one does not fit. That sidetracks the whole thread into circular arguments that keep us off topic.

0 Replies

I submit, rl, that your participation in this and related threads has consisted not of discussion of evolution but rather has amounted to absurd assertions and irrational, ignorant, theistically-based objections to and rejections of the findings and conclusions of legitimate science, assertions, objections and rejections precisely of the sort and foundation which consistently have brought proponents of your proposition defeat after defeat in the courts and ridicule in the halls of academe. If there is a God, I thank him for making typical proponents of the proposition you stereotypically forward so readilly defeatable. With the likes Behe and Dembski at the helm, and such as those who argue as do you at the oars, it is no wonder the ID-iot's ship is going nowhere fast.

0 Replies

From the other side of the aisle, I agree firmly with RL. This thread has devolved significantly and has become one where the principal issue has been lost in a sea of personal jabbery. However, I would include Rex as the "nonspecific" stimulant who's elicited almost all of the purely personal stuff.
I check in every so often and find that the topic has wandered about the point of beating each other up about whether religions are the foci of ID and Creationism, I believe that ship has nicely sailed and is way over the horizon.

I posted a thread for Creationists to present evidence and fact. The thread died after about 2 weeks, so this is sort of "home plate" for the debate.

Whether RL is spouting misconceptions , or whether rex has no clue, or whether spendi is focusing only upon social issues to the ommission of all others, or whether timber uses too many adjectives, or ci likes to rub it in too much or whether rosborne enjoys being flippant, is not the point.
I hope this thread can go back to its origins talk .

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I've got it figured. Rex will try to hold out, to be last poster of the thread, then (he he) declare himself the winner.

If I lose no one wins...

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I would submit that Rex also does not want it discussed, because he tries so hard to inject a God where one does not fit. That sidetracks the whole thread into circular arguments that keep us off topic.

You're the one I see running in circles. Are you saying I am wrong and that God is not everywhere? Where is your proof for this? I am not the one who has placed myself against God. I don't have to prove God to you, it is you who have to prove God to yourself. This is the personal duty of any reasonably minded person.

I have been witnessing the holy spirit to many people in my lifetime. I have seen MANY go from total disbelief to rapture with God. I have dealt with the most critical of God and seen God work on their hearts and turn them to his holy word. I have seen hatred for God turn to pure love for God without hypocrisy. I have seen God call his children home... So it is you who is stuck at square one spinning your wheels and getting "nowhere". I hope to never doubt God but I know I am human and God has grace for those occasions. Yet to live in total disbelief is the height of disgrace.

0 Replies

I don't post often, because there are a few posters here with much better education than I, who do an exemplary job. Farmerman,Timber and Lightwizard come most readily to mind. I don't intend to waste my time arguing posts such as the last offered by Rex. I leave that to anyone with a compulsion to respond to inanities, endlessly.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

From the other side of the aisle, I agree firmly with RL. This thread has devolved significantly and has become one where the principal issue has been lost in a sea of personal jabbery. However, I would include Rex as the "nonspecific" stimulant who's elicited almost all of the purely personal stuff.
I check in every so often and find that the topic has wandered about the point of beating each other up about whether religions are the foci of ID and Creationism, I believe that ship has nicely sailed and is way over the horizon.

I posted a thread for Creationists to present evidence and fact. The thread died after about 2 weeks, so this is sort of "home plate" for the debate.

Whether RL is spouting misconceptions , or whether rex has no clue, or whether spendi is focusing only upon social issues to the ommission of all others, or whether timber uses too many adjectives, or ci likes to rub it in too much or whether rosborne enjoys being flippant, is not the point.
I hope this thread can go back to its origins talk .

FM it is not my intention to shut out your discussions. Two and even three discussions can be simultaneously carried on in one thread at the same time.

A thousand pages later there is not much at this point that is off topic. I do not post my spiritual stuff to derail the conversation but to compliment it. Your evolution data is also a compliment to the topic. As you know the subject goes where the interest is...

Sometimes people need a break in the monotony. Evolution is devoid of God which makes it false. That does not mean that God did not use evolution to create life on earth. It just means that evolution does not acknowledge that and thus evolution is incomplete.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't post often, because there are a few posters here with much better education than I, who do an exemplary job. Farmerman,Timber and Lightwizard come most readily to mind. I don't intend to waste my time arguing posts such as the last offered by Rex. I leave that to anyone with a compulsion to respond to inanities, endlessly.

Then it is you who will appear weak, for you inability to respond and logically defend your position. This is the nature of your position.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't post often, because there are a few posters here with much better education than I, who do an exemplary job. Farmerman,Timber and Lightwizard come most readily to mind. I don't intend to waste my time arguing posts such as the last offered by Rex. I leave that to anyone with a compulsion to respond to inanities, endlessly.

Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex
Don't embarrass us further.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Rex, science is dispassionate, objective, derived from and driven soley by humankind's need, will, and ability to explore, discover, learn, understand, and use that which comprises the stuff of the universe in which humankind finds itself. Science of necessity has its own ethic - the ethic of truth as determined through fact. Science permits and advances technology, technology has no ethic, it has only uses and effects. Unethical humans can and do put technology to ill purpose, a happenstance having nothing to do with science. You'll get no argument that the perversions of humans are proximate to the ills done in the name of religion, just as there can be no argument the ills brought through the unethical exploitation of technology are wholly the product of human perversion. Science has nothing to do with either set of ills, though religion often plays in both.

This is interesting... though it seems a bit contradictory. Are you saying that scientists aren't humans? Smile

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I don't post often, because there are a few posters here with much better education than I, who do an exemplary job. Farmerman,Timber and Lightwizard come most readily to mind. I don't intend to waste my time arguing posts such as the last offered by Rex. I leave that to anyone with a compulsion to respond to inanities, endlessly.

Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex Rex
Don't embarrass us further.

I am not ashamed of my God or my position... I have respect for you but not your apparent position...

0 Replies

rex,in all seriousness, said

Quote:

Evolution is devoid of God which makes it false. That does not mean that God did not use evolution to create life on earth. It just means that evolution does not acknowledge that and thus evolution is incomplete.

.

Is it false or just incomplete? One does not imply the other.

0 Replies

Do you have any substantive, coherent remarks to make on the subject of evolution? Do you have anything to say which does not involve tripping throught tulips of your internal fantasies?

The title of the thread is "Evolution? How?" Can you add to the topic either proof that evolution does occur, or that it does not?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rex,in all seriousness, said
Quote:
Evolution is devoid of God which makes it false. That does not mean that God did not use evolution to create life on earth. It just means that evolution does not acknowledge that and thus evolution is incomplete.

.

Is it false or just incomplete? One does not imply the other.

False due to it's being incomplete. Incomplete due to it's being false.

Evolution is missing it's greatest contributing factor... God.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Do you have any substantive, coherent remarks to make on the subject of evolution? Do you have anything to say which does not involve tripping throught tulips of your internal fantasies?

The title of the thread is "Evolution? How?" Can you add to the topic either proof that evolution does occur, or that it does not?

I assume this is addressed to me at this point.

That is my point that God has contributed to evolution. You want proof? Disprove it. It should be easy to disprove if it is "fantasies" as you claim... But you cannot disprove it so you cannot say they are fantasies because those fantasies are highly plausible and surely probable... So who is standing in the way of logic. God is logical. To blindly deny a creative force in the universe is the height of stupidity and human arrogance. It is the very first step into devolution. In the beginning of the universe we should distinguish the method from the means... That evolution is the method and creation is the means...

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know