Evolution? How?

I couldn't think of a nicer way to say it and still be honest. To me, spewing out a stream of unconnected speculation under the guise of trying to learn something, is babbling.

Setanta

Do you even know the Roman Catholic statement of faith?

Have you ever compared their statement of faith with that of the "major" protestant faiths? If you had you would know what I am talking about.

That is the first place to start with any religion...

Now lets see if you can find the Roman Catholic statement of faith...

You probably didn't even know there was one...
Also, I know more about Luther than you think... You don't even know the difference between Protestants and Catholics... It is not just that the words are different... hehe

And as for your accusations they are not even worth me bothering to respond to them...

I have a curiosity to learn things like anyone else and I do listen...
Unlike you who cannot read who started this post... You make allot of unfounded assumptions too... The difference is I admit many of my assumptions are figments of my own imagination but you claim your assumptions are so superior that you insult others at will... You know what that is a sign of... low self esteem...

Have fun buddy . . . i recommend a large, empty room . . . then when you talk, thanks to the echo, it will seem as though you are not alone . . .

Very funny... I guess when you cannot add anything constructive to the post you respond like a 4 year old...

So did you look up statements of faith? I do not have to look them up because I already know the main ones...

For instance...

You will find in the Roman Catholic statement of faith a bit about "how" they derive their doctrines... The pope come first then tradition and if that does not work they may consult the Bible from time to time... This does not mean that they do not know the Bible but their religion does not always reflect the written word.

An example:
The Bible warns of the trinity and the pitfalls of it, but both Protestants and Catholics have this doctrine as cornerstones in their religions... It is only when you get down to non denominational religions that tradition is left behind for the simpler truth that Jesus Christ was only a man and not God... Why? Because that is what the Bible teaches over "tradition"...

The statements of faith of most protestant religions you will certainly find no mention of a pope. But you will also find that they do mention "traditions"... then the Bible... With the Mormons of course they have two books and consider the Bible of lesser value than the BOM...

So the Roman Catholic statement of faith reads something like this: The Pope, tradition and the Bible (last) are our rule of faith and practice...

Protestants: Tradition and the Bible (last) are our rule of faith and practice...

Some protestants take it a step farther... and state: "The Bible is our sole and only rule of faith and practice"... They do not allow a pope or tradition to dictate their faith thus it is likely to be more "biblical"... This is why they memorize the scriptures and carry the Bible everywhere they go...

Thus they are pro testament or "for the word" or protestant. When you have a pope or traditions they can talk people out of just doing what the word says... This is why there is such a radical right in America because they take the Bible literally... and use it as their "sole and only rule of faith and practice"...

I did not have to look this up... I have known about these statements of faith for over 20 years...

I am part of the last group... the one that takes the Bible literally... but I also know that things are not always what they seem and the Bible can interpret itself... and needs careful study to rightly divide the word of truth...

This is so basic and you seem to have so much education in religion to no avail...

Now this is a reply with some "content"...

You know when you point a finger you have three pointing back at yourself...

Think about that...

Rex please stop posting stream of conscienceness. If it is about evolution AND its role as a theory and in science fine. But if its about your views on religion and life and the future give it a seperate thread.

So some leftist science people (not all) like to come into a perfectly beautiful discussion where people are exchanging ideas in "harmony" and take a dump in the middle of the room and expect no one to notice?

It was when Setanta came into this post that it turned into one big insult directed at me.... I hope you are happy Setanta... and a few other started showing just how intolerant, spiritless and downright nasty you can be...

Farmerman is the only one of you who appears to have real character. He sticks to the issues and is not so unhappy with himself that he has to constantly insult others.

I must laugh at some of you science people to shrug it off, You have few "Christian" ethics, you can criticize but you cannot show one shred of evidence that much of what I have said is not true... If that was the case Farmerman would have said much more to correct my folly... He has helped this discussion along and not injected science fanaticism over calm discussion.

Setanta, you do need to prove me wrong or shut up! Do you know what a proof is? I had A's in geometry and B's in chemistry.. and attended private schools. I posted on Abuzz for five years and have thousands of discussions under my belt... If you remember Rosborne we have known each other for years... I cannot believe you can follow along with this Setanta.

I am a homosexual and I have dealt with discrimination and intolerance all of my life... I have been physically beat up for it left for dead and my entire childhood was terrorized by bullies... some of them girls too... So, considering this, this means absolutely nothing at all to me... I have just learned that you are not all good people and I will make a note of it and act accordingly.

If I am insulted by Setanta or anyone else again I will report you to the moderator... If you cannot keep the flow of ideas going then you are not only unable to know but you are unable to learn and interact with a basic decorum...

Setanta obviously has not even read this post and his only motivation seems to stifle the positive flow of ideas. Maybe I should go to a science thread and start throwing in radical Christian ideas... but I am not in a science thread but a religion and spirituality thread.

No how about that one? Does it sound like I know how to use the English language?

I must not be that poor of a conversationalist or I would not have logged several thousand posts on Abuzz over a span of years. There was a reply to what I posted... And yes, they saw me as a bit "out there" too but they had a basic interest and civility. I knew not to post a science post and start talking about God...

I was taught to never apologize for being a Christian and I am not about to start now... but being a Christian does not mean I let people walk all over me either. Look what the world did to Jesus? So I don't expect a warm welcome either...

Do you know what the English words, etiquette and decorum mean Setanta? If you keep making personal attacks, I will take it up here first and if it does not stop, I will report it. You have burned my onion and I am above slinging insults.

Now I will let this discussion cool, for myself for a while, my brain is frazzled from a week of Setanta and having to defend myself... I will be back at a later time and we can hopefully resume the discussion of love for science and God respectively...

I think a good discussion on "the nature of light" would be interesting too.

Peace with God all...

Rex, Im having a difficult time following your logic most of the time also. I just try to mention that much of what you say does have some precedent in the Giaists who basically believe that everytyhings alive. I dont buy any of it in the least but there are some greatscientists in that camp who, I believe, just carry correlation too far.
As parados said, we should try to not engage in 'stream of consciousness" discussions or else this thread will die of terminal weirdness. I wish to continue discussing the original point even if its seen in a Christian doctrinal basis. However, lets try to finish one thing before we start dangling whole bunches of shards from other points. Thats where I fall off the truck.
Im probably one of those "leftists science people". So watch what you say to me as well. My teeth certainly arent as sharp as setantas but Im more a truncheon kinda guy

Ok then I will post a stream of unconsciousness... hehe

This was written by the originator of this thread...

I seem to find a lot more truth from the Bible and not what a bunch of scientists tell me. come on seriously how believable is all the "scientific" stuff they say is right. a monkey turning in to a man? A big bang and the world was formed? How did the stuff that collided get formed?

Comment:
I do not know this person but I have tried my best to answer their question as it relates to God and the Bible... you are all forgetting... this is a post about religion and evolution not evolution and science... You need to have the stomach for it... four of them hehe

Being a dual purpose to this thread, God should be included in the discussion where and when it applies... That is what scientists don't get... They cannot prove God so they make an assumption that he does not need to figure into their calculations...

I myself would prefer that this thread does lean more toward science because I already have a solid understanding of God and the Bible and it is really my own understanding of science that I want to sharpen up on...

So the only way I can compare what is in my mind is to stream it... and see if it has any real substance... It is not an easy task, it takes a lot of typing, re-reading editing, and it leaves me vulnerable to character attacks... it drains me too... but this is how I learn and others can learn too... so I too am, Able2Know also...

I am not afraid to bare my soul you should try it, it can be fulfilling...

You are probably right about the Giaists thing and maybe I have taken the evolution logic too far. I really will give this some thought. I respect your opinion and have learned a great deal from you...

Someday my logic may come back and possibly make some sense...

I am careful not to use superlatives and lump all scientist into a left right, wrong right type of thing and I have no problem with the left in many ways... the left are the only people who can even stand me. hehe

I think I admire the Gia theories especially because they are breathtakingly beautiful (like evolution) and deserve some consideration. Perhaps they are only a fanciful speculation but any discussion on how evolution began should at least include a Gia footnote...

Perhaps there are distinct kinds of truth, vol_fan06.

When a bully comes at us swinging a tire iron, the "truth" is a very visceral understanding that, without thought, we must instantly do something. Our "social intelligence" interprets and reacts faster than we can think of any facts, or believe any philosophy.

When we touch a hot stove, our finger produces intense pain that makes us jerk our hand immediately away from the heat. There is a form of "physical intelligence" to that. It serves us well.

When we calculate a math problem, "Ship A headed south at 30 knots, while Ship B headed east at 20 knots..." there are synthetically correct answers that approximate, but never completely match the situations we face in real life. That kind of "truth" relies on rounded facts, but must be judiciously applied. With wisdom.

When someone close to me says "I love you", there are no facts or figures to it whatsoever, but the bond is incredible even without saying words or wanting anything at all from each other. That kind of "truth" is far more spiritual . . . the clear sense of our nature and who we are.

What kind of truth are you aiming for, vol_fan06?
Each type works very differently, comes from and effects completely different situations, no?

. . . spiritual . . . emotional . . . physical . . . intellectual . . . mental

. . . financial . . . social . . . political . . . artistic . . . experiential

. . . ethical . . . goal-oriented . . . procedural/rhythmic . . . aesthetic . . .

Pick a field, then we can discuss it's form of "truth" clearly, without misinterpreting or mis-applying our words.

It is amazing to me how hypocritical, narrow-minded, and just downright stupid some people are.

Here's some food for thought for all you reationists out there: You ask "Why was the Earth made?" and the only answer you accept is "Because God created it." The logic is that there must have been some reason for it, and science does not provide a reason. Here's a question which I believe will turn the tables: if God did indeed create the Earth, then why did he create it? Or if there is some reason why he create the Earth, then why does God exist? I'm intereted to hear the answer. And "We musn't question God" doesn't count.

I don't see an answer to that question - but then again, I'm pretty sure one of you hardcore creationists will make something up that will seem to serve its purpose. Before posting an answer to the above questions, first think: can the answer you're providing be given a reason as well? If you give me an answer, and I ask you "Why?", can you answer?

You see, it is of course possible that any number of dieties exists. There's no way that I can see that can either prove or disprove that. The lack of possibility of proof leaves only one logical option: believe what can be proven. And although there is no disproof of God, I choose not to believe in God because:

1) The idea of God is inconsistent with every logical description of the world that I have ever seen.
2) There's no reason to believe in God - what difference does it make?
3) If you believe in God because of the Bible, then you could, using the same justification, believe in the tooth fairy because of a collection of fables.

Also, there is the fact that religion has suppressed intellectuals all throughout history. Didn't the Inquisition suppress Galileo? Didn't Galileo's theories work? Just a quick example off the top of my head, I can easily write several pages of such examples but I won't because i don't see the need for it.

I'm very curious to see what replies will be given to my post. Chances are, either none will be given or there will be nonsensical replies.

what makes you so certain that all you confess on Evolution is truth? Do you have personal evidence that you'd like to share? We wont advance our discussions by mere namecalling because thats where it usually winds up and everyone goes away feeling superior and no one gets any closer to an understanding of the others knowledge base

Did you know that the pope gave Galileo an arm's length of freedom to pursue his Copernican studies, but as long as he didnt publish them. Since the Church was supporting Galileo, they had a contractual right to impose some "disincentives" on his breaking of the rules dont you think? .

As I said, it's possible that creationism is correct (in part, most likely), but I am firmly convinced that evolutionism is true. Why? It's logical. It makes sense. It's consistent with everything we have seen, measured, studied.

Yes, I knew that Galileo wouldn't have been persecuted if he hadn;t oublished his results, but what good are results if you can't share them? I'm sure that you wouldn;t be saying that if one of your friends found a cure for cancer but couldn't tell anyone because he'd be persecuted. If he then gave the cure for cancer to the world, and they hung him for it, do you think that would be appropriate? I don't think you would, I don't think anyone would. It's the same principle.

The church wasn't "supporting" Galileo because they told him not to publish his results! If it supported him, they would have made usre his results were published.

Another comment, I think I'm repeating myself though:



What makes you so sure it isn't true? Tell me there's no evidence to support it and I'll show you evidence. Tell me that it doesn't make sense and I'll explain it to you. Tell me why it isn't possible and I'll tell you why it is. On the other hand, if I told you that the idea of God is illogical, I don't think you could explain the ligc behind it.

I also notced that you didn't answer the questions:



Did you omit an answer on purpose or by chance?

Also, I forgot to mention, I did intend to call some people stupid (by "some" I didn't mean to generalize, you have to admit that some people in this world are less than average), and I'm sorry if I offended you. I did notice some comments in this topic that were very stupid and pointless, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed them.

Nothing's changed. If you developed a cure for Cancer and you happened to be a researcher for Pfizer with a strict works contract , youd not be allowed to publish until the company told you when. The church already knew the heliocentric theory was the way to go. They , like their dealings with evolution 450 years later, determined how they could handle this within doctrine and church teaching. There is no implied "right" to publish anything unless it is vetted by the sponsoring entity for consistency with their worldview.

As far as the last 2 quotes , Im just jackin you. I wanted to see if youve read any earlier posts, or if youve just dropped in. Id guess the latter.

Blutarsky's Axiom: Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason.

Here is an interesting link

http://www.myomaxfitness.com/Articles/thesis.htm

Some physiological functions that have been reported due to magnetic fields include increased blood flow, changes in the migration of calcium ions, alteration of pH balance, increased or decreased hormone production, and an alteration of enzyme activity and biochemical processes (Hacmac, 1991). These effects are related to where the magnet is placed on the body, the strength of the field, the uniformity of the field, the direction of the magnetic field, and the operation time (Hayashi et al., 1976).

RexRed,

How would you relate that information
to the topic of this thread?

I read about 5 pages of this topic before noticing it was 135 or so pages, and then i skipped to 137 and read on.

You still didn't answer my "why" questions, which creationists are also so fond of asking of evolutionists.