Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[Boss]

Now, it is true that nobody has actually observed first hand the genesis of life from non-living material (i.e., abiogenesis). However, just because something is unobserved certainly does not automatically imply that it cannot, or did not happen.

Now wait just a damn minute... how can YOU lay claim to the "supernatural magic" of spontaneous generation, with no observable science whatsoever, but I can't do the same? Sounds like you kind of have a double standard thing going here.

Fact of the matter is, until we observe it happen, we can't claim that it's valid scientifically. I don't really care how many theories you post, or how many various opinions about abiogenesis. I can present just as many theories and opinions regarding creationism.

And no... The Law of Biogenesis is NOT a phrase coined by the religious, it is a well-established and sound scientific principle which is the basis for all of biology and has NEVER been refuted.

Such melodrama, shortstop. Hey, by your skewed, twisted "fundie logic", we have to dismiss that weird theory of gravity because we cannot observe it.

Really, shortstop, try and get past your 5th grade education level in the sciences.

And sorry, but your fundamentalist religious beliefs replete with magical spirit realms aren't a counter to the physical sciences.

So yes, you can present all the nonsensical claims to ID'iot creationism you wish. However, we in the rational world (to exclude you supernaturalists), understand that ID'iot creationism is nothing more than a religious claim and totally lacking support.

BTW, your nonsensical "law of biogenesis" that you stole from your fundamentalist creation ministries is a laughable joke that only you spirit realm'ists take seriously.

We can observe the effects of gravity. It's how we know the universe is made up of 96% of something we don't understand... Dark energy and dark matter. Science doesn't dismiss anything, science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. Something you don't seem to want to do.

Intelligent design lacks just as much support as abiogenesis at this point. None exists for either, in terms of hard scientific evidence and observation. The Law of Biogenesis is not something created by religious nuts or any person other than Louis Pasteur. This is basic 5th Grade Science. It's stunning that an actual adult person is arguing to the contrary.

Now... Allow me to explain something here... The Law of Biogenesis is currently the principle of biology science agrees is a "fact" of science. This does not mean that it is empirical, unassailable, unchallengeable or irrefutable. Throughout science is a history of laws and principles rendered obsolete by later findings of science... because science keeps asking questions, it never stops. Therefore, we can say that it's possible one day, scientists will make a discovery which renders the Law of Biogenesis obsolete. As it currently stands, that has not happened.

There are ONLY theories to support the idea of Abiogenesis. And there are actually about 127 of those, many of which have been debunked. I think there are like a dozen or so theories currently in process of serious scientific study, but so far nothing has been revolutionary. One of the theories, interestingly enough, proposes that moisture held in the clays of early earth reacted chemically with other elements to spark life. It's fascinating to me how the biblical story has "gawd" spitting into dust to make man.

Merry Christmas, by the way!

 

[Boss]

But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution.

This is also false. Darwin's theories are regarding the changes in organisms which already exist. He makes no claims as to how organisms originate. Science once thought that spontaneous generation was possible, but Pasteur proved this was not the case. Spontaneous generation is an essential part of ABIOGENESIS theory, which necessarily contradicts Scientific principle. In other words, "Magic!"

Really, shortstop. Pay attention.

The quote: "But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution,"

Is a part of the nonsense perpetuated by your ID'iot creationism heroes at Answers in Genesis.

Well I don't know about that because I don't keep up with what religious groups say. I was simply commenting that the statement was not correct. So I guess the bible-thumpers are wrong, toots..

I suppose you are the inventor of your own "Religion of Magical Spirit Realms".

Actually, you should keep up with what religious groups say because your attempts at argument are not only consistent with the christian fundamentalists, they are identical, shortstop.

Nope... Some friends of mine and myself, once talked about creating our own Church. We were going to call it the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. Services would be on Saturdays from Noon to Midnight and started with "Communion" consisting of a shot of Kentucky Bourbon and small nibble of mushroom. Church music was mostly Allman Brothers, Cream and Grateful Dead.

I think it would have been a hit with the hipsters, what do you think?

 

[Hollie]

Now, it is true that nobody has actually observed first hand the genesis of life from non-living material (i.e., abiogenesis). However, just because something is unobserved certainly does not automatically imply that it cannot, or did not happen.

Now wait just a damn minute... how can YOU lay claim to the "supernatural magic" of spontaneous generation, with no observable science whatsoever, but I can't do the same? Sounds like you kind of have a double standard thing going here.

Fact of the matter is, until we observe it happen, we can't claim that it's valid scientifically. I don't really care how many theories you post, or how many various opinions about abiogenesis. I can present just as many theories and opinions regarding creationism.

And no... The Law of Biogenesis is NOT a phrase coined by the religious, it is a well-established and sound scientific principle which is the basis for all of biology and has NEVER been refuted.

Such melodrama, shortstop. Hey, by your skewed, twisted "fundie logic", we have to dismiss that weird theory of gravity because we cannot observe it.

Really, shortstop, try and get past your 5th grade education level in the sciences.

And sorry, but your fundamentalist religious beliefs replete with magical spirit realms aren't a counter to the physical sciences.

So yes, you can present all the nonsensical claims to ID'iot creationism you wish. However, we in the rational world (to exclude you supernaturalists), understand that ID'iot creationism is nothing more than a religious claim and totally lacking support.

BTW, your nonsensical "law of biogenesis" that you stole from your fundamentalist creation ministries is a laughable joke that only you spirit realm'ists take seriously.

We can observe the effects of gravity. It's how we know the universe is made up of 96% of something we don't understand... Dark energy and dark matter. Science doesn't dismiss anything, science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. Something you don't seem to want to do.

Intelligent design lacks just as much support as abiogenesis at this point. None exists for either, in terms of hard scientific evidence and observation. The Law of Biogenesis is not something created by religious nuts or any person other than Louis Pasteur. This is basic 5th Grade Science. It's stunning that an actual adult person is arguing to the contrary.

Now... Allow me to explain something here... The Law of Biogenesis is currently the principle of biology science agrees is a "fact" of science. This does not mean that it is empirical, unassailable, unchallengeable or irrefutable. Throughout science is a history of laws and principles rendered obsolete by later findings of science... because science keeps asking questions, it never stops. Therefore, we can say that it's possible one day, scientists will make a discovery which renders the Law of Biogenesis obsolete. As it currently stands, that has not happened.

There are ONLY theories to support the idea of Abiogenesis. And there are actually about 127 of those, many of which have been debunked. I think there are like a dozen or so theories currently in process of serious scientific study, but so far nothing has been revolutionary. One of the theories, interestingly enough, proposes that moisture held in the clays of early earth reacted chemically with other elements to spark life. It's fascinating to me how the biblical story has "gawd" spitting into dust to make man.

Merry Christmas, by the way!

That was quite a reversal from your earlier positions. It's good to know that you're not going to attempt to defend ID'iot creationism as anything but the fraud that it is. Similarly, the silly "law of Biogenesis" that is a staple of your fundie creation ministries is as much a fraud as ID'iot creationism. Why you hope to defend such silliness is puzzling.

 

[Hollie]

But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution.

This is also false. Darwin's theories are regarding the changes in organisms which already exist. He makes no claims as to how organisms originate. Science once thought that spontaneous generation was possible, but Pasteur proved this was not the case. Spontaneous generation is an essential part of ABIOGENESIS theory, which necessarily contradicts Scientific principle. In other words, "Magic!"

Really, shortstop. Pay attention.

The quote: "But spontaneous generation is an essential part of the theory of evolution,"

Is a part of the nonsense perpetuated by your ID'iot creationism heroes at Answers in Genesis.

Well I don't know about that because I don't keep up with what religious groups say. I was simply commenting that the statement was not correct. So I guess the bible-thumpers are wrong, toots..

I suppose you are the inventor of your own "Religion of Magical Spirit Realms".

Actually, you should keep up with what religious groups say because your attempts at argument are not only consistent with the christian fundamentalists, they are identical, shortstop.

Nope... Some friends of mine and myself, once talked about creating our own Church. We were going to call it the First Whiskey Church of Jesus. Services would be on Saturdays from Noon to Midnight and started with "Communion" consisting of a shot of Kentucky Bourbon and small nibble of mushroom. Church music was mostly Allman Brothers, Cream and Grateful Dead.

I think it would have been a hit with the hipsters, what do you think?

I think it was another in a long list of failures you have yet to reconcile.

 

[Boss]

Now, it is true that nobody has actually observed first hand the genesis of life from non-living material (i.e., abiogenesis). However, just because something is unobserved certainly does not automatically imply that it cannot, or did not happen.

Now wait just a damn minute... how can YOU lay claim to the "supernatural magic" of spontaneous generation, with no observable science whatsoever, but I can't do the same? Sounds like you kind of have a double standard thing going here.

Fact of the matter is, until we observe it happen, we can't claim that it's valid scientifically. I don't really care how many theories you post, or how many various opinions about abiogenesis. I can present just as many theories and opinions regarding creationism.

And no... The Law of Biogenesis is NOT a phrase coined by the religious, it is a well-established and sound scientific principle which is the basis for all of biology and has NEVER been refuted.

Such melodrama, shortstop. Hey, by your skewed, twisted "fundie logic", we have to dismiss that weird theory of gravity because we cannot observe it.

Really, shortstop, try and get past your 5th grade education level in the sciences.

And sorry, but your fundamentalist religious beliefs replete with magical spirit realms aren't a counter to the physical sciences.

So yes, you can present all the nonsensical claims to ID'iot creationism you wish. However, we in the rational world (to exclude you supernaturalists), understand that ID'iot creationism is nothing more than a religious claim and totally lacking support.

BTW, your nonsensical "law of biogenesis" that you stole from your fundamentalist creation ministries is a laughable joke that only you spirit realm'ists take seriously.

We can observe the effects of gravity. It's how we know the universe is made up of 96% of something we don't understand... Dark energy and dark matter. Science doesn't dismiss anything, science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. Something you don't seem to want to do.

Intelligent design lacks just as much support as abiogenesis at this point. None exists for either, in terms of hard scientific evidence and observation. The Law of Biogenesis is not something created by religious nuts or any person other than Louis Pasteur. This is basic 5th Grade Science. It's stunning that an actual adult person is arguing to the contrary.

Now... Allow me to explain something here... The Law of Biogenesis is currently the principle of biology science agrees is a "fact" of science. This does not mean that it is empirical, unassailable, unchallengeable or irrefutable. Throughout science is a history of laws and principles rendered obsolete by later findings of science... because science keeps asking questions, it never stops. Therefore, we can say that it's possible one day, scientists will make a discovery which renders the Law of Biogenesis obsolete. As it currently stands, that has not happened.

There are ONLY theories to support the idea of Abiogenesis. And there are actually about 127 of those, many of which have been debunked. I think there are like a dozen or so theories currently in process of serious scientific study, but so far nothing has been revolutionary. One of the theories, interestingly enough, proposes that moisture held in the clays of early earth reacted chemically with other elements to spark life. It's fascinating to me how the biblical story has "gawd" spitting into dust to make man.

Merry Christmas, by the way!

That was quite a reversal from your earlier positions. It's good to know that you're not going to attempt to defend ID'iot creationism as anything but the fraud that it is. Similarly, the silly "law of Biogenesis" that is a staple of your fundie creation ministries is as much a fraud as ID'iot creationism. Why you hope to defend such silliness is puzzling.

No reversal, it's the same position I've held for over 35 years. ID is more than a theory, it is the answer to the dilemma of origin. Science may one day discover how the Creator did it. There are lots of theories about that but none are proven, that's what makes it such a fascinating topic.

Now.... I am a Science Nut... (not a religious nut)... My field of expertise is Psychology, the science of the human mind and behavior. But I have always held a strong fascination with science in general, it was always my favorite subject in school and I made perfect grades. I think I was in the 5th grade when I learned of Louis Pasteur and his Law of Biogenesis. This is one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in science.

For the record, they nearly ran old Louie out of France when he first proposed his theory. You see, SOME people tend to "worship at the altar of science" instead of exploring their spirituality... and those people tend to cling to prevailing science as their "gospel" and are unwilling to allow actual science (the continual asking of questions) to happen. They form a "faith" around whatever prevailing science has indicated and refuse to accept change when actual science demonstrates it. So when Louie came along and upset the apple cart with his beliefs that microbial life could defy our ability to see it, many were skeptical.

 

[Hollie]

Now, it is true that nobody has actually observed first hand the genesis of life from non-living material (i.e., abiogenesis). However, just because something is unobserved certainly does not automatically imply that it cannot, or did not happen.

Now wait just a damn minute... how can YOU lay claim to the "supernatural magic" of spontaneous generation, with no observable science whatsoever, but I can't do the same? Sounds like you kind of have a double standard thing going here.

Fact of the matter is, until we observe it happen, we can't claim that it's valid scientifically. I don't really care how many theories you post, or how many various opinions about abiogenesis. I can present just as many theories and opinions regarding creationism.

And no... The Law of Biogenesis is NOT a phrase coined by the religious, it is a well-established and sound scientific principle which is the basis for all of biology and has NEVER been refuted.

Such melodrama, shortstop. Hey, by your skewed, twisted "fundie logic", we have to dismiss that weird theory of gravity because we cannot observe it.

Really, shortstop, try and get past your 5th grade education level in the sciences.

And sorry, but your fundamentalist religious beliefs replete with magical spirit realms aren't a counter to the physical sciences.

So yes, you can present all the nonsensical claims to ID'iot creationism you wish. However, we in the rational world (to exclude you supernaturalists), understand that ID'iot creationism is nothing more than a religious claim and totally lacking support.

BTW, your nonsensical "law of biogenesis" that you stole from your fundamentalist creation ministries is a laughable joke that only you spirit realm'ists take seriously.

We can observe the effects of gravity. It's how we know the universe is made up of 96% of something we don't understand... Dark energy and dark matter. Science doesn't dismiss anything, science continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. Something you don't seem to want to do.

Intelligent design lacks just as much support as abiogenesis at this point. None exists for either, in terms of hard scientific evidence and observation. The Law of Biogenesis is not something created by religious nuts or any person other than Louis Pasteur. This is basic 5th Grade Science. It's stunning that an actual adult person is arguing to the contrary.

Now... Allow me to explain something here... The Law of Biogenesis is currently the principle of biology science agrees is a "fact" of science. This does not mean that it is empirical, unassailable, unchallengeable or irrefutable. Throughout science is a history of laws and principles rendered obsolete by later findings of science... because science keeps asking questions, it never stops. Therefore, we can say that it's possible one day, scientists will make a discovery which renders the Law of Biogenesis obsolete. As it currently stands, that has not happened.

There are ONLY theories to support the idea of Abiogenesis. And there are actually about 127 of those, many of which have been debunked. I think there are like a dozen or so theories currently in process of serious scientific study, but so far nothing has been revolutionary. One of the theories, interestingly enough, proposes that moisture held in the clays of early earth reacted chemically with other elements to spark life. It's fascinating to me how the biblical story has "gawd" spitting into dust to make man.

Merry Christmas, by the way!

That was quite a reversal from your earlier positions. It's good to know that you're not going to attempt to defend ID'iot creationism as anything but the fraud that it is. Similarly, the silly "law of Biogenesis" that is a staple of your fundie creation ministries is as much a fraud as ID'iot creationism. Why you hope to defend such silliness is puzzling.

No reversal, it's the same position I've held for over 35 years. ID is more than a theory, it is the answer to the dilemma of origin. Science may one day discover how the Creator did it. There are lots of theories about that but none are proven, that's what makes it such a fascinating topic.

Now.... I am a Science Nut... (not a religious nut)... My field of expertise is Psychology, the science of the human mind and behavior. But I have always held a strong fascination with science in general, it was always my favorite subject in school and I made perfect grades. I think I was in the 5th grade when I learned of Louis Pasteur and his Law of Biogenesis. This is one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in science.

For the record, they nearly ran old Louie out of France when he first proposed his theory. You see, SOME people tend to "worship at the altar of science" instead of exploring their spirituality... and those people tend to cling to prevailing science as their "gospel" and are unwilling to allow actual science (the continual asking of questions) to happen. They form a "faith" around whatever prevailing science has indicated and refuse to accept change when actual science demonstrates it. So when Louie came along and upset the apple cart with his beliefs that microbial life could defy our ability to see it, many were skeptical.

Um, sorry, but ID'iot creationism is not a scientific theory. It us window dressing for fundamentalist religio. There are no peer reviewed investigations proceeding in the area of ID'iot creationism. There have not been and never will be any scientific studies of ID, because it has nothing in it that is scientifically testable. no predictions, no theory, nothing. Do you need confirmation of that? Go ask Paul Nelson, Dembski or Behe. All they will give you is wishful thinking. Behe will spout on and on about the different “mechanisms” proposed by ID'iot creationismwithout actually saying there are any. No, I’m not kidding - go read the Dover transcript and see for yourself. Nelson is on record as agreeing that there is no scientific theory of ID. why do you suppose this is?

 

[Boss]

Science is currently unable to explore spiritual nature, just as it was once unable to explore quantum nature... that's not the fault of spiritual nature. Years ago, science was unable to test lots of things. It would have been ignorant to have decided back then that science would never be able to discover things... but some people did make that argument.

As for how life originated, there is no "peer reviewed" anything of any sort because Abiogenesis has never happened.

 

[Hollie]

Science is currently unable to explore spiritual nature, just as it was once unable to explore quantum nature... that's not the fault of spiritual nature. Years ago, science was unable to test lots of things. It would have been ignorant to have decided back then that science would never be able to discover things... but some people did make that argument.

As for how life originated, there is no "peer reviewed" anything of any sort because Abiogenesis has never happened.

Science is currently unable to explore what doesn't exist. This thing you have invented which you call spiritual nature is nothing more than a version of religious belief that calms some emotional requirement you have for gawds.

 

[Boss]

Science is currently unable to explore spiritual nature, just as it was once unable to explore quantum nature... that's not the fault of spiritual nature. Years ago, science was unable to test lots of things. It would have been ignorant to have decided back then that science would never be able to discover things... but some people did make that argument.

As for how life originated, there is no "peer reviewed" anything of any sort because Abiogenesis has never happened.

Science is currently unable to explore what doesn't exist. This thing you have invented which you call spiritual nature is nothing more than a version of religious belief that calms some emotional requirement you have for gawds.

But it's clearly not something I invented. Man has been spiritual since man has been civilized, we have evidence. Microbial life "didn't exist" until Pasteur discovered it. It was impossible for one object to be in two places at the same time... until quantum physics proved it. You need to be really careful about the limitations you are putting on science. Much smarter people than you have been made fools of by scientific discovery.

 

[Hollie]

Science is currently unable to explore spiritual nature, just as it was once unable to explore quantum nature... that's not the fault of spiritual nature. Years ago, science was unable to test lots of things. It would have been ignorant to have decided back then that science would never be able to discover things... but some people did make that argument.

As for how life originated, there is no "peer reviewed" anything of any sort because Abiogenesis has never happened.

Science is currently unable to explore what doesn't exist. This thing you have invented which you call spiritual nature is nothing more than a version of religious belief that calms some emotional requirement you have for gawds.

But it's clearly not something I invented. Man has been spiritual since man has been civilized, we have evidence. Microbial life "didn't exist" until Pasteur discovered it. It was impossible for one object to be in two places at the same time... until quantum physics proved it. You need to be really careful about the limitations you are putting on science. Much smarter people than you have been made fools of by scientific discovery.

Mankind has been superstitious and fearful, not "spiritual". Your attempt to force your religious beliefs in "spirit realms" onto mankind is pretty typical for religionists. However, it has been the disciplines of science that have have peeled back the layers of fears and superstitions associated with angry, vengeful gawds which have plagued mankind.

What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or your invented "spirit realms" in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for magical gawds and spirit realms.

Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about your invented spirit realms, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists? You have obviously bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism.

Who is your mentor? Answers in Genesis? Harun Yahya?

I think debates such as these ARE important... even though they do nothing to advance science. They also do nothing to educate the true believer / spirit realmists'. But undeniably, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the ID'iot creationists dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

 

[Boss]

Mankind has been superstitious and fearful, not "spiritual". Your attempt to force your religious beliefs in "spirit realms" onto mankind is pretty typical for religionists. However, it has been the disciplines of science that have have peeled back the layers of fears and superstitions associated with angry, vengeful gawds which have plagued mankind.

As science has peeled back the layers of fears and superstitions, we see a precipitous drop in how seriously humans take those superstitions. This is simply not true for human spirituality. In spite of all the extraordinary scientific discovery, age old questions answered, natural phenomenon explained, we still have a solid 90% or more of the species engaged in spiritual belief. So you can certainly try to equate spirituality with superstitious beliefs, but you're quite frankly, wrong about that. There is something else going on besides fear and superstition.

This has nothing to do with "vengeful and angry gods" and I reject such a concept. There is no rational reason for an omnipotent and omniscient God to be vengeful or angry. Those are human characteristics. Man has conjured up all sorts of incarnations of God through the years. I'm not here to defend any of those incarnations. They are only evidence that mankind has a deep and profound spiritual connection.

What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or your invented "spirit realms" in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

You're simply labeling things "naturalistic" because science explained how they happen. When has science ever explained WHY something happens? Why do two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen form the building block of life known as water? Why does this water freeze at a certain temperature and turn to steam at another? Why do some particles become electrically charged while others don't? Why does gravity exist? Why is light both a particle and wave at the same time?

You certainly DO have faith in math, chemistry, geology and astronomy. When you add 2+2 you have faith it will equal 4 every time. If you drop a ball, you have faith gravity will work on the ball as it always does. Every time you feel you've "concluded" something to be a fact, you demonstrate faith. Science is the antithesis of faith, it continues to explore possibilities and ask questions. Whenever you've reached conclusion as the result of science, you have stopped practicing science and begun practicing faith in your conclusion.

Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for magical gawds and spirit realms.

No, it actually strengthens my argument for a spiritual Creator because you haven't explained why this miracle of all miracles happened to begin with. You've not explained why this evolution has functioned in an ordered path to bring forth what it has. You can explain HOW it happened.. or what you THINK happened... you've yet to tell us why. Science has no real answer for that.

Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about your invented spirit realms, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists? You have obviously bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism.

All my claims have been supported and that support has been documented. I've never mentioned anything about conspiracies or called Darwinists evil. I have read everything Charles Darwin wrote and I think he was a brilliant man for his time. He made huge contributions to science and evolution theory. That said, we have to understand Darwin was operating in the 19th century and modern science was only in it's infancy. Back then, a human cell was thought to be as simplistic as a ping pong ball. Much of what he speculated has since been rendered obsolete but we never hear anything about that. In any event, all Darwin ever studied or proposed, was related to the already-existing organisms of life on the planet. He never made one single indication as to WHY that life existed or how it came to be.

One thing Darwin theorized was natural selection. This is where a species will discard useless attributes if they prevent the species from thriving. With our rich history of religious persecutions, years of people being slaughtered over their religions, and yet 90%+ of the species is still spiritual... must mean the attribute is of fundamental importance to the species. It's certainly not useless or trivial, unless Darwin was completely full of shit.

Who is your mentor? Answers in Genesis? Harun Yahya?

I think debates such as these ARE important... even though they do nothing to advance science. They also do nothing to educate the true believer / spirit realmists'. But undeniably, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the ID'iot creationists dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

I don't really have a mentor. Never have been keen on those personally. I understand that Science is physical science and deals with the physical universe. It is incapable of examining the spiritual nature of the universe at this time. Just as it was once incapable of examining the subatomic universe at one time. LMAO... IF I had told you 200 years ago, that objects can disappear or be in two places at the same time, you would have burned me at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Yet science discovered electrons do this all the time.

So we really can't say what science will one day discover. Perhaps the mysteries of our intrinsic spiritual awareness is to be found in quantum mechanics, other dimensions, multiple universes, alternate realities? Science certainly could discover such a thing someday. There is nothing dishonest about my tactics, I fully support and believe in science. BUT... Science is never conclusive. Science always continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. It doesn't stop, won't stop. Science does not care if you are comfortable in your old faiths or need to press an agenda. It does not draw conclusions... man does that, and as soon as he does, he stops practicing science and adopts faith in his conclusions.

 

[Hollie]

Mankind has been superstitious and fearful, not "spiritual". Your attempt to force your religious beliefs in "spirit realms" onto mankind is pretty typical for religionists. However, it has been the disciplines of science that have have peeled back the layers of fears and superstitions associated with angry, vengeful gawds which have plagued mankind.

As science has peeled back the layers of fears and superstitions, we see a precipitous drop in how seriously humans take those superstitions. This is simply not true for human spirituality. In spite of all the extraordinary scientific discovery, age old questions answered, natural phenomenon explained, we still have a solid 90% or more of the species engaged in spiritual belief. So you can certainly try to equate spirituality with superstitious beliefs, but you're quite frankly, wrong about that. There is something else going on besides fear and superstition.

This has nothing to do with "vengeful and angry gods" and I reject such a concept. There is no rational reason for an omnipotent and omniscient God to be vengeful or angry. Those are human characteristics. Man has conjured up all sorts of incarnations of God through the years. I'm not here to defend any of those incarnations. They are only evidence that mankind has a deep and profound spiritual connection.

What we do know with certainty is that every discovery in the history of mankind has had a natural causation. I have no requirement for faith or your invented "spirit realms" in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are.

You're simply labeling things "naturalistic" because science explained how they happen. When has science ever explained WHY something happens? Why do two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen form the building block of life known as water? Why does this water freeze at a certain temperature and turn to steam at another? Why do some particles become electrically charged while others don't? Why does gravity exist? Why is light both a particle and wave at the same time?

You certainly DO have faith in math, chemistry, geology and astronomy. When you add 2+2 you have faith it will equal 4 every time. If you drop a ball, you have faith gravity will work on the ball as it always does. Every time you feel you've "concluded" something to be a fact, you demonstrate faith. Science is the antithesis of faith, it continues to explore possibilities and ask questions. Whenever you've reached conclusion as the result of science, you have stopped practicing science and begun practicing faith in your conclusion.

Here's a specific evolutionary fact: It is a fact that there is genetic variation within species. It is a fact that this genetic variation is passed on. That, essentially, is evolution. It is a fact that the earth is billions of years old, and that the oldest known microfossil is 3.8 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time for genetic variation to be shaped by selective pressures. It also tends to confound your requirement for magical gawds and spirit realms.

No, it actually strengthens my argument for a spiritual Creator because you haven't explained why this miracle of all miracles happened to begin with. You've not explained why this evolution has functioned in an ordered path to bring forth what it has. You can explain HOW it happened.. or what you THINK happened... you've yet to tell us why. Science has no real answer for that.

Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims about your invented spirit realms, why don't you state some specifics? What, specifically are the conspiracies that you believe are being furthered by those horrible Darwinists and Evilutionists? You have obviously bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism.

All my claims have been supported and that support has been documented. I've never mentioned anything about conspiracies or called Darwinists evil. I have read everything Charles Darwin wrote and I think he was a brilliant man for his time. He made huge contributions to science and evolution theory. That said, we have to understand Darwin was operating in the 19th century and modern science was only in it's infancy. Back then, a human cell was thought to be as simplistic as a ping pong ball. Much of what he speculated has since been rendered obsolete but we never hear anything about that. In any event, all Darwin ever studied or proposed, was related to the already-existing organisms of life on the planet. He never made one single indication as to WHY that life existed or how it came to be.

One thing Darwin theorized was natural selection. This is where a species will discard useless attributes if they prevent the species from thriving. With our rich history of religious persecutions, years of people being slaughtered over their religions, and yet 90%+ of the species is still spiritual... must mean the attribute is of fundamental importance to the species. It's certainly not useless or trivial, unless Darwin was completely full of shit.

Who is your mentor? Answers in Genesis? Harun Yahya?

I think debates such as these ARE important... even though they do nothing to advance science. They also do nothing to educate the true believer / spirit realmists'. But undeniably, they do expose the lack of science in creationism, the ID'iot creationists dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide.

I don't really have a mentor. Never have been keen on those personally. I understand that Science is physical science and deals with the physical universe. It is incapable of examining the spiritual nature of the universe at this time. Just as it was once incapable of examining the subatomic universe at one time. LMAO... IF I had told you 200 years ago, that objects can disappear or be in two places at the same time, you would have burned me at the stake for practicing witchcraft. Yet science discovered electrons do this all the time.

So we really can't say what science will one day discover. Perhaps the mysteries of our intrinsic spiritual awareness is to be found in quantum mechanics, other dimensions, multiple universes, alternate realities? Science certainly could discover such a thing someday. There is nothing dishonest about my tactics, I fully support and believe in science. BUT... Science is never conclusive. Science always continues to ask questions and explore possibilities. It doesn't stop, won't stop. Science does not care if you are comfortable in your old faiths or need to press an agenda. It does not draw conclusions... man does that, and as soon as he does, he stops practicing science and adopts faith in his conclusions.

There is no indication that humanity has displayed anything of your invented "intrinsic spiritual awareness", whatever that is.

So, how does science explore your invented spirit realms?

 

[the_human_being]

Let's get real here.

Scientists are even today continuing to argue the origin of the American Indians among themselves even with all the DNA evidence and live specimens of Indians, Egyptians, Pacific Island people, Asians and Mongolians. Sometimes science is a total joke.

 

[Hollie]

Let's get real here.

Scientists are even today continuing to argue the origin of the American Indians among themselves even with all the DNA evidence and live specimens of Indians, Egyptians, Pacific Island people, Asians and Mongolians. Sometimes science is a total joke.

Actually, it is you hyper-religious loons who are the joke.

 

[Quentin111]

In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

As far as I know Saint Pope John Paul II holds the same opinion. He considers that Darwins evolution is the way the mankind was created.

 

[Boss]

There is no indication that humanity has displayed anything of your invented "intrinsic spiritual awareness", whatever that is.

So, how does science explore your invented spirit realms?

But of course there is evidence, indisputable and unquestionable evidence that human beings have been spiritual creatures from the time they became civilized. Our spirituality is intrinsic, meaning it is natural and essential. While some may find it's not an essential requirement to acknowledge their personal spiritual awareness, we couldn't exist in a world without it.

I've not argued for science to explore spiritual nature. It's obviously incapable of it at this time. But this is far from something I invented. If you want to think human spirituality is invented nonsense, then you have admittedly given up on science and have adopted a faith-based belief that is not supported by science in any way. You've literally become the thing you fear.

 

[Hollie]

There is no indication that humanity has displayed anything of your invented "intrinsic spiritual awareness", whatever that is.

So, how does science explore your invented spirit realms?

But of course there is evidence, indisputable and unquestionable evidence that human beings have been spiritual creatures from the time they became civilized. Our spirituality is intrinsic, meaning it is natural and essential. While some may find it's not an essential requirement to acknowledge their personal spiritual awareness, we couldn't exist in a world without it.

I've not argued for science to explore spiritual nature. It's obviously incapable of it at this time. But this is far from something I invented. If you want to think human spirituality is invented nonsense, then you have admittedly given up on science and have adopted a faith-based belief that is not supported by science in any way. You've literally become the thing you fear.

But of course, your "because I say so " claim to some invention you have of "intrinsic spirituality" assigned to humanity is false.

That's the problem you share with the hyper-religious: your need to impose your religion on others. You have already announced your preconceptions and biases. You hope to impose on others, the fears and superstitions that religions have used to gain complacency and submissiveness.

I'm afraid your revulsion for science, knowledge and learning causes you to confuse your slogans and cliches' with objective reality.

 

[Boss]

But of course, your "because I say so " claim to some invention you have of "intrinsic spirituality" assigned to humanity is false.

That's the problem you share with the hyper-religious: your need to impose your religion on others. You have already announced your preconceptions and biases. You hope to impose on others, the fears and superstitions that religions have used to gain complacency and submissiveness.

I'm afraid your revulsion for science, knowledge and learning causes you to confuse your slogans and cliches' with objective reality.

It's not because I say so at all. It's because we can observe history and see that humans have been spiritual for as long as they have been civilized at least. I've not tried to impose anything on you and I haven't talked at all about religions or religious beliefs. It's not fears and superstitions, we covered that earlier, it can't be. Just like we covered my feelings toward science and it wasn't revulsion.

It's almost as if you're not listening to a word I am saying here. If you just want to stick your virtual fingers in your ears and be a troll, I suppose you can do that. lots of folks do that here.

 

[Hollie]

But of course, your "because I say so " claim to some invention you have of "intrinsic spirituality" assigned to humanity is false.

That's the problem you share with the hyper-religious: your need to impose your religion on others. You have already announced your preconceptions and biases. You hope to impose on others, the fears and superstitions that religions have used to gain complacency and submissiveness.

I'm afraid your revulsion for science, knowledge and learning causes you to confuse your slogans and cliches' with objective reality.

It's not because I say so at all. It's because we can observe history and see that humans have been spiritual for as long as they have been civilized at least. I've not tried to impose anything on you and I haven't talked at all about religions or religious beliefs. It's not fears and superstitions, we covered that earlier, it can't be. Just like we covered my feelings toward science and it wasn't revulsion.

It's almost as if you're not listening to a word I am saying here. If you just want to stick your virtual fingers in your ears and be a troll, I suppose you can do that. lots of folks do that here.

You're insisting that all of humanity has been something you call "spiritual" yet you provide no support for that. Worse, you can't even define this "spiritual'ness" you have unilaterally applied to humanity.

It's true that most religionists hope to apply their partisan gawds and belief systems to humanity as you do but I need to advise that your mere say-so is not a convincing argument.

Humanity is evolving away from such mythologies as "spirit realms" and angry gawds who threaten to return to earth and open a can of unholy whoop-ass, that much is clear. Religious beliefs have nowhere near the power and clout they used to, and as science progresses forward, the god of the gaps and the "spirit realm" pleadings get thinner and thinner.

 

[PostmodernProph]

In my mind, evolution is how God created all living things. Evolution IS creation.

As far as I know Saint Pope John Paul II holds the same opinion. He considers that Darwins evolution is the way the mankind was created.

lol...no.....you've misrepresented that one.....