Evolution? How?

It is the phenomenon of life. In science it is called the "observer"... You can biblically call it the good shepherd, master or lord... But it is the inner spirit "created" in the same way at the "new birth" and it evolves within us and takes on form and becomes a copy of our own psyche because it is "created". Anything that is "created" has never been before. The logic is astounding. The fact that the spiritual logic does not dead end, but it continues to mirror life perfectly, gives credence to the concept. Thus the concept deserves consideration when deciding relative matters of concern.

How very clever of you!



No, i'm just pointing out that you're filling the thread with drivel if you don't provide proof.



This is a typical response of a religionist. You make an extraordinary claim, and therefore, you have the burden of proof. No one is obliged to disprove it. If i were to assert that the earth is flat, and rests upon the back of a giant elephant, and that said elephant stands of the back of an even larger turtle, and that said turtle rests upon of the back of a larger turtle, etc., all the way to infinity--that would contradict the available evidence. Therefore, to be taken seriously in such a contention, i'd be obliged to provide proof. No one would be obliged to disprove it. (Just so that you understand, as you seem not always to understand well, i am, as it happens, making no such assertions.)



This is mere petitio principi. You demand "proof" that you indulge fantasy, in that you demand that your fantasy be disproven--but then assert that i cannot disprove your fantastical thesis. I am not obliged to disprove your theistic fantasy. If you assert that evolution is not possible without god, then you are obliged to prove your thesis.



To the extent that you have provided no logical basis for your theistic contentions, you are, apparently.



In that you have not demonstrated that any god exists, this is a statement without foundation.



You find it necessary to condemn those who might disagree with you for stupidity? Amusing, and not surprising, and it is also not necessary. At such time as you demonstrate the existence of the "creative force" you allege, you will be in a position to accuse others of stupidity. Until such time, you simply make yourself look a fool for resorting to name-calling.



You need to define your terms. What do you assert devolution to be, and what do you claim provides evidence that it is taking place?



Your evidence for a creation is?

My evidence for creation is creation itself, and your "evidence" that we were not created is? Are you going to prove to me that we were not created by using creation? I am still waiting for an answer? Disprove God. That is not a big thing if God is so "imaginary"... Don't you have an equation which disproves that God is not somewhere in the fiber of existence as the all knowing consciousness that has creative and illusive qualities. You make too many limited assumptions for me. I do not find it advantageous in limiting God or the possibilities thereof. This is what I find in the Bible, the unlimited possibility of God... This is truth to me. God is truth. The true God is the way of holiness.

Isa 35:8
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

Rex
When you come up with evidence of a God, you just might get a little respect. In the meantime, you are only a speedbump in the discussion.

I am not obliged to disprove your fantasies. If you wish your thesis to be given serious consideration, you need to provide proof. You state that this is what you find in the bible. What is your evidence that the bible is a reliable account of reality?

Evolution does not have to be proven evolution just is. It is quite believable that life completely evolved on it's own on the earth. But that does not mean that God has not been here helping it along and creating things along the way.

Why are we here? What is our position in this universe? These are all very important questions. Yes is it also important the details of evolution. New discoveries fill in pieces of our understanding.

But this yet again leads us back to God...

To the garden and the tree of knowledge.

We wonder why the ancients used a tree to explain knowledge. For is knowledge a tree? This is certainly figurative and not literal. It is figurative to draw attention to itself and it's message. That knowledge is like a seed that is planted and grows. It grows in the mind. It starts out and grows a long trunk upward and then it grows branches out. But somewhere in those branches unfortunately lurks evil and our own downfall...

So what came first the tree or the tree of knowledge?

Who are we? What was formed, what was made and what was created? What is the whole picture? What is the purpose?

ULTIMATELY EVOLUTION IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE DEPENDANT UPON CREATION.

Something cannot "evolve" from NOTHING in the first place.

This is justification for creation and spirituality.

For, there cannot be creation without a creator.

God is a speedbump? See how you are?

If you are going to disprove something you equally need proof...

I am not attempting to disprove anything. I will also refuse to believe your fantasies without proof of the existence of your god, and without proof of your alleged creation. I have nothing to disprove. You have a lot to prove, however, and so far, all you've done is what you always do--spread a lot of manure, without materially contributing to the discussion.

I wasn't aware we were gardening today. I didn't bring my bag of compost. It must be someone elses manure. This religious thread on evolution has precious few speed bumps and lemmings are prone to cliff diving.

I never doubt that the religious convinced must be intimately familiar with the mindset of lemmings.

What one can find by digging through the weeds of unnecessary verbiage with which you habitually clog this thread is that you believe there is a god, that you believe that evolution is a process which can account for the diversity of life on this planet (i know you didn't write that, but it's so damned hard to know just what you mean, i put it in, as exemplary of the grounds for discussion--if i've mistated your belief, i have no doubt that you'll correct me, and with about one hundred times as much text as will necessary to simply say "yes" or "no."); and that you believe that this alleged god has taken a hand (so to speak) in the evolutionary process.

Therefore, once again, what evidence do you have that a god of any description exists? What evidence do you have that a creation took place? What evidence do you have that said god has intervened in the evolutionary process?

Proof of God:

1) Existence exists
2) Something cannot evolve from nothing
3) Existence requires creation first
4) Existence is creation
5) Creation requires a creator

Thus, the creator exists because existence exists.

There is my proof. Now where is yours to the contrary?

Let's see your logic as terse as mine.

How many creators? One? What's the proof of that, consistency?
Fifty creators all working through a network of universes they had already created?

Or is it the number of gods, goddesses, sprites, spirits and hoo-doos that have populated the imaginations of many humans, but not all.

Bring forth the proof of these Makers.

Joe(The world does look like the work of a committee.)Nation

Rex, Your poofism theory doesn't work; no evidence of creation, but thousands of evidence for evolution.

That you have a mental block on all the evidence for evolution available today through the many fields of science just shows just how backwards religion is. Wake up and smell the coffee, then come and live in the present generation.

Tautological drivel--this proves nothing.



This is not evidence that any god exists or that a creation occured. It is simply evidence that something came from something.



This is the crux. Your statement from authority is meaningless. What evidence do you have that existence requires a creation?



This is not true by any definition of the word existence.



Which is meaningless if you cannot demonstrate that a creation has occured--which you have not done.



You have not demonstrated what you allege to be true about existence. Therefore, i have no reason to accept your contention.

Next . . .

Rex, science does not assert that the universe was not created, science has discovered no evidence to support the notion. Religion asserts there to have been creation, but provides no evidence for it.

Science, through diverse disciplines, disciplines multiply intertwined, cross-corroborational, mutually consistent with observation and prediction, disciplines not one in principle or particular at odds with any of the others, presents an ever-growing, reasoned, rational, natural, logical, demonstrated to be valid to the extent of current knowledge, evidence-supported body of explanations for natural phenomena, building from that body of knowledge the framework of further exploration, discovery, and understanding, on which framework the body of knowledge grows and expands. Science offers postulation as well as pronouncement, acknowledging there are areas, even particulars, beyond science's current ability to explain; the postulations of science stem from, are based on, consistent with that which science has found to be true within the bounds of that which currently is known. That for which science has no explanation is by science freely and openly acknowledged, and is the focus of ongoing research, testing, examination, inquiry, and discovery, research, testing, examination, inquiry and discovery which lead always to the refinement of scientific explanation, not infrequently bringing about a realignment or even revision of theretofore previous scientific explanation.

Science has discovered and explained much of the physics and chemistry behind the mechanics of the universe we observe. Science does not say "And then there was magic", science says either "By the available evidence it appears that" or "Insufficient data". Science is the determination of the probable and the examination of the unknown. Science is dynamic, self-directing, self-correcting.

In the matter of evolution, science has confirmed the phenomenon to within a degree of probaility vanishingly indistinct from certainty; no other plausible, consistent-with-observation-and-prediction explanation exists. Nothing in science contraindicates, let alone contradicts evolution, but rather all of science cross-validates and confirms evolution, on all scales from cosmologic through biologic to sub-atomic. Science has determined the chemistry and physics necessary for evolution exist and are consistent throughout the observable universe, and science has determined that by the physics and chemistry evolution is necessary; given a particular set of conditions, a given range of results will proceed - invariably, from the formation of galactic clusters to the development of the precursors of biotic replication. While science may not be able to construct a star, nor has it yet - so far as generally is known - produced an original, unknown to nature living biologic cell, science has a very good idea of the mechanics of the evolution of both.

Religion can make no such claims, offer no such discovery, explanation, and understanding; the central, undemontstrated, undemonstrable premise of religion is that "First and always there was and is magic". Science does not stand in opposition to religion, science says nothing of religion. Religion, or, more precisely, an aspect of religion embraced and endorsed by some religionists, stands in opposition to science, disputing, rejecting, disregarding evidence provided through science, while offering no evidence of its own, proceeding entirely from assumption, offering postulations wholly at odds with empirical observation. The religion of some, such as those who's propositions apparently you forward, founded in and dependent upon ignorance, misunderstanding, superstition, and assumption, is static, not dynamic, is not open, is not forward-looking, is insucceptable to refinement, revision, or expansion, is antithetical to discovery and understanding, is no gateway to future pathways but rather, and futiley, is an endeavor to reject the dicovery and exploration of the future, an attempt to embrace and revive the past. Spirituality is one thing, religious superstition another, the first a matter of personally developed philosophy, the second a matter uncritical, counter-intellectual acceptance of myth and legend in preference to evidence, logic, discovery, and understanding. Science is unafraid of saying "We don't know", science does not fear but in fact embraces, seeks, and explores the unknown; the religion your posts endorse is naught but fear and avoidance of the unknown.

As has been said to another who's posts reflect a theophilosophical bent not dissimilar to that embodied within your posts, with the likes of those you follow at the helm and the likes of those who argue as do you at the oars, it is no wonder the ID-iot's ship is going nowhere fast.

Demonstrate, objectively and in academically sound, forensically valid manner that religious faith - particulary and specifically that of the sort you endorse and espouse - be differentiable from superstition.

The Big Bird has taken the long route. I intend to truncate the tail-chasing, although i doubt it will have any impression on you.

You assert that God exists. In the body of your "proof" is the assertion that existence requires creation. If that were so, then who or what has created your god? If, as i suspect, you are prepared to stipulate that god is eternal, then you have provided a significant exception to your rule that existence required creation. To that, i would respond entia non sunt multiplicanda--causes are not to be multiplied. In the absence of evidence, one need only assume that the cosmos is eternal. One simply eliminates the unnecessary middleman.

Set, Excellent point: if creation is necessary as a primary premise, then who created god?

Not only who created God, but who created god's creator?

It's turtles, all the way down.