Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[Si modo]

HERE is the sum total of your laughable take on science and creation. Enjoy!



Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum

You are funny with your strawmen. I don't give a shit about this museum, yet you keep going on about it. How irrelevant of you. Your kneejerk assumptions about my views are making you look like a fool. Take a few deep breaths, read the thread, then either continue looking like the fool, or get relevant in your responses to me.

that museum is about as impressive as your entire input in this thread. Indeed, it's fucking hilarious to see you cry about knee jerk assumptions given your entire input in this thread thus far. Shall we take a gander at the concept of evidence and review your intelle-lol: sorry, couldn't finish that sarcasm without bursting forth in laughter), uh, your posts, rather? I bet you don't.


Trust me, dogma junkie. I'm not the one looking like a fool in this age of science. Especially when all you seem capable of is trying hard to assimilate what science brings to the table.


Go apply for a science job and explain how god magically wiggled his nose and *poof* there goes Adam riding a fucking dinosaur, dude.

You are so filled with irrational emotion, it's hard to tell what you even want to say. It's funny how your irrational emoting completely contradicts the printed word. Keep it up. Now you are just the fool. LMAO.

 

[jillian]

Actually, the original Hebrew, B'reishis, means "in A beginning", not THE beginning, thereby implying OTHER beginnings.

just sayin'.

do you know of a link to a hebrew interpretation for creation in genesis? I'd be interested in reading about interpretive errors filtered by the jewish perspective.

This is a nutshell version from wiki, but if you ask 3 jews, you get 10 different responses.

Jewish views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm kind of fond of this, though (from the link).

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides and Gersonides[1] held that not every statement in Genesis is meant literally.[2] In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great Rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.[citation needed] Maimonides argued that if science proved a point that did not contradict any fundamentals of faith, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. [3] For example, in discussing Aristotle's view that the universe had existed literally forever, he argued that there was no convincing rational proof one way or the other, so that he (Maimonides) was free to accept, and therefore did accept, the Biblical view that the universe had come into being at a definite time; but that had Aristotle's case been convincing on scientific grounds he would have been able to reinterpret Genesis accordingly.

I've always been kind of curious, though, about how we had a book for thousands of years and a new religion comes along and decides that our book is suddenly meant, after those thousands of years, to be literally interpreted.

I mean... wouldn't we know how our own book is supposed to be read?

 

[Si modo]

For someone with a biology major and a Psych minor, then you should at least know that its all in your brain.

As are most beliefs. I doubt you are telling him anything but the obvious.

Then I'll point out something equally obvious, at least, to me. Its bolded above.

I understand what he is saying completely. If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I wouldn't be a good scientist. If I allowed my science to question my set of beliefs, I wouldn't be a believer. As I have made the choice to believe, this is how most of the scientific community who are also believers reconcile the two idea sets. The two don't mix. One is personal, the other is professional.

 

[Shogun]

I'm a Jewish Buddhist, sorry bro .

that is neither here nor there. You made as assertion about gods will and I'd like to see if you can provide evidence for such outside of admitting that it is nothing more than your personal opinion.

Sure right after you give me evidence that God exists i'll get right on getting you evidence that the same God intended its creations to evolve .

Please dont use your personal opinion to prove the existence of said god (Balls getting busted ).

i'm not the one making the baseless assertions here. Which is why I pounced on your original quote. Feel free to flounder about however you will.


ps, hey brainiac.. I'm the arch atheist around here. I'm not in the business of proving god. I am, however, in the business of reminding you why evidence is necessary. So, by all means, shock this monkey and support your assertions with a lil bit more than laughable attempts at shit talking.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from



NOOB

EDIT: Please provide detailed evidence god doesn't exist, as you have established personal opinion doesn't count.

EDIT2: Oh and don't get buthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

 

[Coloradomtnman]

As are most beliefs. I doubt you are telling him anything but the obvious.

Then I'll point out something equally obvious, at least, to me. Its bolded above.

I understand what he is saying completely. If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I wouldn't be a good scientist. If I allowed my science to question my set of beliefs, I wouldn't be a believer. As I have made the choice to believe, this is how most of the scientific community who are also believers reconcile the two idea sets. The two don't mix. One is personal, the other is professional.

Why would one NOT question everything, especially when that person understands science?

 

[Shogun]

our galaxy all formed at the same time 4.5 billion years ago....neither of us know earth's position to the sun in the beginning...how much light we got from the sun in the beginning....how much gravitational pull was present etc...

before our sun exploded and became the sun, where was the matter that formed the earth shogun?

hovering over the waters could be just a term, a figure of speech.

are you saying that we did not get our water without gravity? the water was under the earth's crust, from what i saw on The Universe...only to arrive on the surface later...after some cooling, and some scientists also believe asteroid bombardment might have brought the extra water....

before our moon, the water on the earth had tides of a mile high going in 100 miles inland and then out 100 miles, is what scientists say.... some scientists even say, without this craziness of tides we may not have developed life....the agitation of tides without our moon set us up for life to begin here...

The light from the early Universe still exists. We can look back when the Universe was less than 400,000 years old.

Universe Pictures

And yet, an actual photograph won't be enough. You can't make people see. They just close their minds.

The cool thing about us is that it takes exploding stars to make the material that we are made out of. We are the children of Novas. Much better that than a pile of dirt.

so are you saying that when earth was being formed, the light of the universe is what gave us day and night? how could that be? did we rotate around the universe?

are you denying the sun's presence when our galaxy was formed?

are you denying that the surface of the earth became covered with water? are you denying the water came up from under the surface? are you denying that waters covered the earth before land came up?

i truly do not know what you are trying to say?

pile of dirt? no way! we are star dust...the dust of the earth is stardust
care

um, if there were no light until after the creation of the earth then there would have been no light from any other stars just like there was none from our own star. Logical order of operations.

 

[Shogun]

You are funny with your strawmen. I don't give a shit about this museum, yet you keep going on about it. How irrelevant of you. Your kneejerk assumptions about my views are making you look like a fool. Take a few deep breaths, read the thread, then either continue looking like the fool, or get relevant in your responses to me.

that museum is about as impressive as your entire input in this thread. Indeed, it's fucking hilarious to see you cry about knee jerk assumptions given your entire input in this thread thus far. Shall we take a gander at the concept of evidence and review your intelle-lol: sorry, couldn't finish that sarcasm without bursting forth in laughter), uh, your posts, rather? I bet you don't.


Trust me, dogma junkie. I'm not the one looking like a fool in this age of science. Especially when all you seem capable of is trying hard to assimilate what science brings to the table.


Go apply for a science job and explain how god magically wiggled his nose and *poof* there goes Adam riding a fucking dinosaur, dude.

You are so filled with irrational emotion, it's hard to tell what you even want to say. It's funny how your irrational emoting completely contradicts the printed word. Keep it up. Now you are just the fool. LMAO.

...says the evidence-less dogma junkie....


by all means, dude... QUOTE YOUR EVIDENCE. Go ahead.. right here:



[space reserved for evidence]

 

[Shogun]

Actually, the original Hebrew, B'reishis, means "in A beginning", not THE beginning, thereby implying OTHER beginnings.

just sayin'.

do you know of a link to a hebrew interpretation for creation in genesis? I'd be interested in reading about interpretive errors filtered by the jewish perspective.

This is a nutshell version from wiki, but if you ask 3 jews, you get 10 different responses.

Jewish views on evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm kind of fond of this, though (from the link).

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides and Gersonides[1] held that not every statement in Genesis is meant literally.[2] In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great Rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted.[citation needed] Maimonides argued that if science proved a point that did not contradict any fundamentals of faith, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. [3] For example, in discussing Aristotle's view that the universe had existed literally forever, he argued that there was no convincing rational proof one way or the other, so that he (Maimonides) was free to accept, and therefore did accept, the Biblical view that the universe had come into being at a definite time; but that had Aristotle's case been convincing on scientific grounds he would have been able to reinterpret Genesis accordingly.

I've always been kind of curious, though, about how we had a book for thousands of years and a new religion comes along and decides that our book is suddenly meant, after those thousands of years, to be literally interpreted.

I mean... wouldn't we know how our own book is supposed to be read?

thanks, I'll check that out now. Have a great day, Jillybean!

 

[Si modo]

that museum is about as impressive as your entire input in this thread. Indeed, it's fucking hilarious to see you cry about knee jerk assumptions given your entire input in this thread thus far. Shall we take a gander at the concept of evidence and review your intelle-lol: sorry, couldn't finish that sarcasm without bursting forth in laughter), uh, your posts, rather? I bet you don't.


Trust me, dogma junkie. I'm not the one looking like a fool in this age of science. Especially when all you seem capable of is trying hard to assimilate what science brings to the table.


Go apply for a science job and explain how god magically wiggled his nose and *poof* there goes Adam riding a fucking dinosaur, dude.

You are so filled with irrational emotion, it's hard to tell what you even want to say. It's funny how your irrational emoting completely contradicts the printed word. Keep it up. Now you are just the fool. LMAO.

...says the evidence-less dogma junkie....


by all means, dude... QUOTE YOUR EVIDENCE. Go ahead.. right here:



[space reserved for evidence]

Sure. Here is evidence of my views on religion in the written word: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88993-why-cant-evolution-be-part-of-gods-plan.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88794-christian-views-on-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/87467-why-im-an-atheist.html

Of course, if I thought you would actually read in lieu of seeing your amusing irrational assumptions, my providing those links would go against my desire for entertainment. Carry on.

 

[xsited1]

praytell. The bible specifically states that Adam was crafted out of dust; not out of carbon molecules. That women were crafted afterward from a rib bone; not evolved in direct tandem with a male counterpart. Tell me, how does sexual reproduction happen, as necessary in EVOLUTION, without a mate which is somehow unnecessary until Adam got bored?

The whole "days could mean anything" opinion always cracks me up too. If anything, the nomenclature of DAYS reflects on the very human minds that were as busy making this shit up about human origin as they were blaming fire on angered sky gods. Why, if this is the inspired word of god, don't we see a time concept mentioned that is something other than clearly human-oriented in description?



"On the Third Malfanor God created..."

You're clueless as well! Are you the same as BigBarry? Perhaps his brother.

So tell me, what is meant by 'dust'? Don't know? Let me know when you find out. And why don't you know about the differences in the meaning of the word 'day' in the Bible? You act like you know a lot about the Bible, but you clearly do not.

So how were a man and a woman created that were necessary to produce a child? It's the chicken and the egg argument. So many basic questions, so few answers.

wow! what EXPERTISE!




Dust could mean any number of things. ANY number of things. But, rather than face this FACT you ASSume that dust means carbon molecules.

Maybe if you spent more time providing evidence of your rather stupid posts than acting like a fucking professor you'll impress someone. As it stands, you clearly have no idea about the specifics of meiosis or it's origin in mitosis.




shit, did I just ask a dogma junkie for EVIDENCE? The ghost of Copernicus is laughing at you.

Now I know you're just trolling. You're the one who ASSumed I meant dust meant carbon molecules. And the fact that you're bringing up meiosis and mitosis means you didn't understand where I was coming from, but that didn't stop the insults. The OP is 'why can't evolution be part of god's plan?' The answer is, it can and it must. There is plenty missing in the book of Genesis which requires evolution to be part of the plan as I've already pointed out.

 

[Si modo]

Then I'll point out something equally obvious, at least, to me. Its bolded above.

I understand what he is saying completely. If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I wouldn't be a good scientist. If I allowed my science to question my set of beliefs, I wouldn't be a believer. As I have made the choice to believe, this is how most of the scientific community who are also believers reconcile the two idea sets. The two don't mix. One is personal, the other is professional.

Why would one NOT question everything, especially when that person understands science?

You're asking a question that is completely answered in what you quoted. I'll try again: If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I could not do science effectively. If I allowed my science to question my set of beliefs, I could not believe. I choose to be both a believer and do science. Mixing the two sets of ideas is non-productive to either set. I prefer to be productive.

 

[xotoxi]

Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

Because that would make the creationists wrong.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

Because that would make the creationists wrong.

Or right depending on your viewpoint .

 

[Shogun]

You are so filled with irrational emotion, it's hard to tell what you even want to say. It's funny how your irrational emoting completely contradicts the printed word. Keep it up. Now you are just the fool. LMAO.

...says the evidence-less dogma junkie....


by all means, dude... QUOTE YOUR EVIDENCE. Go ahead.. right here:



[space reserved for evidence]

Sure. Here is evidence of my views on religion in the written word: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88993-why-cant-evolution-be-part-of-gods-plan.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88794-christian-views-on-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/87467-why-im-an-atheist.html

Of course, if I thought you would actually read in lieu of seeing your amusing irrational assumptions, my providing those links would go against my desire for entertainment. Carry on.

I can quote every post of yours in this entire thread and we still won't see one iota of relevant input outside of laughable self righteousness. USMB threads are not evidence, holmes. Your high school bio teacher must have been real good at his job.

 

[Si modo]

...says the evidence-less dogma junkie....


by all means, dude... QUOTE YOUR EVIDENCE. Go ahead.. right here:



[space reserved for evidence]

Sure. Here is evidence of my views on religion in the written word: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88993-why-cant-evolution-be-part-of-gods-plan.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88794-christian-views-on-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/87467-why-im-an-atheist.html

Of course, if I thought you would actually read in lieu of seeing your amusing irrational assumptions, my providing those links would go against my desire for entertainment. Carry on.

I can quote every post of yours in this entire thread and we still won't see one iota of relevant input outside of laughable self righteousness. USMB threads are not evidence, holmes. Your high school bio teacher must have been real good at his job.

Eh, what can anyone do about the willfully ignorant. Your choice, of course.

 

[Shogun]

You're clueless as well! Are you the same as BigBarry? Perhaps his brother.

So tell me, what is meant by 'dust'? Don't know? Let me know when you find out. And why don't you know about the differences in the meaning of the word 'day' in the Bible? You act like you know a lot about the Bible, but you clearly do not.

So how were a man and a woman created that were necessary to produce a child? It's the chicken and the egg argument. So many basic questions, so few answers.

wow! what EXPERTISE!




Dust could mean any number of things. ANY number of things. But, rather than face this FACT you ASSume that dust means carbon molecules.

Maybe if you spent more time providing evidence of your rather stupid posts than acting like a fucking professor you'll impress someone. As it stands, you clearly have no idea about the specifics of meiosis or it's origin in mitosis.




shit, did I just ask a dogma junkie for EVIDENCE? The ghost of Copernicus is laughing at you.

Now I know you're just trolling. You're the one who ASSumed I meant dust meant carbon molecules. And the fact that you're bringing up meiosis and mitosis means you didn't understand where I was coming from, but that didn't stop the insults. The OP is 'why can't evolution be part of god's plan?' The answer is, it can and it must. There is plenty missing in the book of Genesis which requires evolution to be part of the plan as I've already pointed out.

yea, bringing up sexual and asexual reproduction in light of the fabrication of Eve sure does suggest that I don't know where you are coming from.



No, the answer is not "it can and must". if you think so then, by all means, POST SOME FUCKING EVIDENCE.

And, thanks for filling in the blank of your assertions without me having to go back a few pages. Your ability to deduce reminds me of a tonka truck sitting still at the base of a mountain.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I understand what he is saying completely. If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I wouldn't be a good scientist. If I allowed my science to question my set of beliefs, I wouldn't be a believer. As I have made the choice to believe, this is how most of the scientific community who are also believers reconcile the two idea sets. The two don't mix. One is personal, the other is professional.

Why would one NOT question everything, especially when that person understands science?

You're asking a question that is completely answered in what you quoted. I'll try again: If I allowed my set of beliefs to question my science, I could not do science effectively. If I allowed my secience to question my set of beliefs, I could not believe. I choose to be both a believer and do science. Mixing the two sets of ideas is non-productive to either set. I prefer to be productive.

Let me see if I can't word this well enough to post coherently:

Allowing personal feelings, subjective feelings, color scientific observations and thought taints objective results. I'm with you so far.

Allowing objective observation and logic to shape my beliefs makes me rational. Allowing desires to shape my beliefs makes me irrational. If I believe in Zeus because I choose to, that would make me irrational, and some would even say crazy. Being irrational is the same as being crazy - and although everyone of us is sometimes crazy to some degree, continuing to be irrational is insane.

 

[Si modo]

Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

Because that would make the creationists wrong.

Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

Because that would make the creationists wrong.

Or right depending on your viewpoint .

And that about sums it all up, doesn't it? Yet, emotions that this evokes in some are amazing to watch.

 

[Shogun]

Sure. Here is evidence of my views on religion in the written word: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88993-why-cant-evolution-be-part-of-gods-plan.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/88794-christian-views-on-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/87467-why-im-an-atheist.html

Of course, if I thought you would actually read in lieu of seeing your amusing irrational assumptions, my providing those links would go against my desire for entertainment. Carry on.

I can quote every post of yours in this entire thread and we still won't see one iota of relevant input outside of laughable self righteousness. USMB threads are not evidence, holmes. Your high school bio teacher must have been real good at his job.

Eh, what can anyone do about the willfully ignorant. Your choice, of course.

..says the guy whose thread input amounts to fortune cookie insight....