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

[xsited1]

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.

Yet another good troll post! You're talking in circles. You want me to post some evidence yet you already mentioned meiosis and mitosis and the fact that God created Man from the dust of the earth. Clearly, you are . (Of course, you're too much of a dimwit to understand this.)

Seriously, you excel at troll posting. The fact that you've strayed from the OP and incorrectly assumed what I've said means you really don't have anything to say. You're the typical troll: post a bunch of crap and attempt to anger people who are here to seriously discuss the topic. I bow to your trolliness, but I'm not going to bite anymore. Be gone, troll.

 

[rdean]

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.

"The two don't mix." Is that anything like "dissociative identity disorder"?

 

[Shogun]

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 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.

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

 

[Shogun]

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.

Yet another good troll post! You're talking in circles. You want me to post some evidence yet you already mentioned meiosis and mitosis and the fact that God created Man from the dust of the earth. Clearly, you are . (Of course, you're too much of a dimwit to understand this.)

Seriously, you excel at troll posting. The fact that you've strayed from the OP and incorrectly assumed what I've said means you really don't have anything to say. You're the typical troll: post a bunch of crap and attempt to anger people who are here to seriously discuss the topic. I bow to your trolliness, but I'm not going to bite anymore. Be gone, troll.

I cited the evidence that creationists use, nothing more. See, that is the difference between your posts and mind: evidence. Notice, I never said that the creation of man from dust was A FACT. Details, lil guy, details.

blah blah blah.. if this is the sum total of your ability to disavow your position in light of a lack of anything even remotely resembling evidence I guess it's clear why you balk at posting such.

Run along lil dogma junkie. Your kind are quickly becoming extinct with every new scientific discovery that you first demonize and then, later, have to try and assimilate.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

 

[Shogun]

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.

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

yea... science sure doesn't put a fucking premium on objective observations... Francis Bacon's ghost is now joining in with the spectral laughter.

 

[Si modo]

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Not at all. I've never said my beliefs are more or less valid than anyone's and have no idea why you would think that I have. If you have no beliefs, I have no issues with that. I expect the same level of respect in return. I have beliefs because I choose to do so. I choose to do so because it personally works for me, just as several personal philosophies work for me.

 

[Shogun]

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Hence the necessity of evidence and objective observation as outlined by the scientific method. Galileo nor Copernicus merely BELIEVED in what they became famous for. Instead, they offered physical evidence in lieu of mere belief. This is why people like Si Modo have a hard time offering evidence for their beliefs and hope that crying foul normalizes wacky opinions with what we have evidence for.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Not at all. I've never said my beliefs are more or less valid than anyone's and have no idea why you would think that I have. If you have no beliefs, I have no issues with that. I expect the same level of respect in return. I have beliefs because I choose to do so. I choose to do so because it personally works for me, just as several personal philosophies work for me.

Okay, I get it. I don't "realize it" or "fully understand it". It just seems so far out there to me. I can't believe in anything that I don't have a choice about. For example, I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow because I have no choice about it. If I chose not to believe it, I would still believe it and would just be struggling with chosing not to believe it. Belief is hard for me. That example isn't exactly true. Even now I have doubts that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I mean, you never know. Earth could be demolished by an asteroid knocked out of orbit between Mars and Jupiter tonight. So it's very difficult for me to comprehend how someone can just choose to believe something when I can't really believe anything other than "Cogito ergo sum".

 

[Si modo]

One would have to accept your premise that beliefs are based on objective observations. If I had objective observations about an idea (beliefs are ideas), then that idea is based on some supporting information and is rational. Agreed. However, not all beliefs are based on objective obsevation. In fact, beliefs are ideas not based on proof. Thus, your conclusion that I am or any believer is insane is a non sequitur.

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Hence the necessity of evidence and objective observation as outlined by the scientific method. Galileo nor Copernicus merely BELIEVED in what they became famous for. Instead, they offered physical evidence in lieu of mere belief. This is why people like Si Modo have a hard time offering evidence for their beliefs and hope that crying foul normalizes wacky opinions with what we have evidence for.

[Emphasis added] You might want to brush up on your definitions:

belief

• noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.

[Emphasis added] (Oxford Dictionary)

 

[Si modo]

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Not at all. I've never said my beliefs are more or less valid than anyone's and have no idea why you would think that I have. If you have no beliefs, I have no issues with that. I expect the same level of respect in return. I have beliefs because I choose to do so. I choose to do so because it personally works for me, just as several personal philosophies work for me.

Okay, I get it. I don't "realize it" or "fully understand it". It just seems so far out there to me. I can't believe in anything that I don't have a choice about. For example, I believe the Sun will come up tomorrow because I have no choice about it. If I chose not to believe it, I would still believe it and would just be struggling with chosing not to believe it. Belief is hard for me. That example isn't exactly true. Even now I have doubts that the Sun will rise tomorrow. I mean, you never know. Earth could be demolished by an asteroid knocked out of orbit between Mars and Jupiter tonight. So it's very difficult for me to comprehend how someone can just choose to believe something when I can't really believe anything other than "Cogito ergo sum".

I think the concept of "you never know" is one of the reasons I have made the choices that I have in this respect. I keep my mind open about it as closemindedness has never served me well personally. I have had numerous conversations with both believers and non-believers about this over the years as my belief has never been all that strong from the start. This is where I am now. It may change, it may not. But I cerainly will not make any decisions one way or the other based on most of the rhetoric I see here.

 

[Shogun]

Why have beliefs? What purpose do your beliefs have? Why are your beliefs more valid than those of someone who believes in Zeus and all the gods of the Pantheon? Am I mixing Greek mythology with Roman terms? Anyway, you see my point?

Hence the necessity of evidence and objective observation as outlined by the scientific method. Galileo nor Copernicus merely BELIEVED in what they became famous for. Instead, they offered physical evidence in lieu of mere belief. This is why people like Si Modo have a hard time offering evidence for their beliefs and hope that crying foul normalizes wacky opinions with what we have evidence for.

[Emphasis added] You might want to brush up on your definitions:

belief

• noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.

[Emphasis added] (Oxford Dictionary)

here, you might do yourself a favor when participating in threads having anything to do with science concepts that are not defined by personal belief:

History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Si modo]

Hence the necessity of evidence and objective observation as outlined by the scientific method. Galileo nor Copernicus merely BELIEVED in what they became famous for. Instead, they offered physical evidence in lieu of mere belief. This is why people like Si Modo have a hard time offering evidence for their beliefs and hope that crying foul normalizes wacky opinions with what we have evidence for.

[Emphasis added] You might want to brush up on your definitions:

belief

• noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith.

[Emphasis added] (Oxford Dictionary)

here, you might do yourself a favor when participating in threads having anything to do with science concepts that are not defined by personal belief:

History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? LOL. Dilettante.

 

[k2skier]

Religion has been stifling science for hundreds (thousands?) of years...

Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin - Three Men Who Changed the World | Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc

The following words are from the great philosopher Bertrand Russell from his book Religion and Science.

New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power; nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, it is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.


Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)

His work was put in the Index of Forbidden Books in 1611 and not taken out until around 1835. The Index was a list of books put out by the Roman Catholic Church that they considered immoral, impious or dangerous. It is hard to believe but the last edition of the list was published as recently as 1948. Luckily for Roman Catholics it was decreed in 1966 that no more new lists would be published and that it was OK to read from existing lists without fear of excommunication.



Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

He published his findings and found himself in conflict with philosophers and professors. The idea that the earth moved around the Sun was not in accord with biblical scripture and in 1614 he was secretly denounced to the Inquisition by Dominican preachers.

Galileo was tried in Rome in February 1633 and on June 16 was sentenced. On June 21 Galileo was read his sentence - guilty! He was ordered to recant and was sentenced to life imprisonment which was commuted to house arrest by the Pope. He is alleged to have said, under his breath, "But it moves for all that." Galileo remained under house arrest for another eight years until his death on January 8 1642.

In 1998 after an investigation set up by Pope John Paul ll the Roman Catholic Church admitted it had been wrong about Galileo!


Religous Tolerance About this web site

We believe that: Religions are very different.
Religions teach very different perceptions of God.
All religions cannot be absolutely true in their beliefs.
With few exceptions, most faith groups have a positive influence on their members.
Some religions and their followers have committed terrible atrocities against women and minorities.
Honest doubt helps prevent many religious injustices. Those who were most certain of their faith were the ones who stoned the prophets.
All, or almost all, theistic religions are "bottom-up" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books are the creation of humans trying to comprehend the deity or deities that they have created.
Few, if any, of the theistic religions are "top-down" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books represent revelation from God to humanity.

Few, if any, of the theistic religions are "top-down" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books represent revelation from God to humanity.

Oh man, that's fantasic. I feel pretty safe in saying that none of them are top down.

Your lack of logic is astounding. But keep playing at it; it's cute.

As I said, if your mental faculties are so limited that you think being a scientist and believeing are mututally exclusive, one must question why you bother playing even a dilettante at science.

It's true Christianity is a bottom up faith, made up by man to TRY to explain his existence; care to prove how it isn't?

 

[Si modo]

Few, if any, of the theistic religions are "top-down" faiths. That is, their beliefs, practices and holy books represent revelation from God to humanity.

Oh man, that's fantasic. I feel pretty safe in saying that none of them are top down.

Your lack of logic is astounding. But keep playing at it; it's cute.

As I said, if your mental faculties are so limited that you think being a scientist and believeing are mututally exclusive, one must question why you bother playing even a dilettante at science.

It's true Christianity is a bottom up faith, made up by man to TRY to explain his existence; care to prove how it isn't?

I don't care to try at all. First, it's an exercise in futility to prove something; one can only provide supporting information for it. Secondly, it's more an exercise in futility to prove ones religious beliefs to another. Futility is uninteresting to me. Finally, I don't proselytize as I don't care if you believe or not. That's your personal choice.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from. Please provide EVIDENCE, as it is necessary. Support your assertation that god doesn't exist with a lil bit more than your laughable attemts at doucebaggery.




NOOB

Oh and don't get butthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

 

[Care4all]

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Genesis 1 - Passage*Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com


As you can see, according to the bible god created the heavens and THE EARTH first. How does the Earth have "waters" for the spirit of god to hover over without the Sun's gravity which doesn't make an appearance until the 3rd verse?

Thanks for admitting your posts are merely "how you read them". Which, in effect, is nothing more than an opinion.

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 feet inland and then out 100 feet, 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...

see how much twisting and wrangling that is necessary to mold your faith in the likeness of science? A FIGURE OF SPEECH? seriously?


but to the finer points:

first, the bible says nothing about the age of anything. You've taken that from science. Second, the bible states that the earth was created BEFORE the light was created. Regardless of perspective to the sun there would have still been the presence of light. So, im sorry, but yours is simply a wrong notion.

and, seriously. every star in the sky amounts to a sun. Your entire perspective argument flies right out the window.

I want you to read this sentence again REAL carefully:

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



for real.

and without gravity, and the sun to provide gravitational axis, there is no water on the surface. This is why it's significant that the bible states which was created first. Think of it as an order of operation.

Moons and tides and agitation doesn't support the origin version in genesis. And, just so you know, Adam didn't name a Brontosaurus either.. Nor did woman spring from his rib bone like an asexual mutation.




the more you know.

where did it say 'the waters' were on the SURFACE shoggie....it does not say that the waters are on the SURFACE, you just presumed such.... and what do you think hovering means?

oh, and i am not arguing genesis chapter 2 with you, i am arguing genesis chapter 1 so adam's rib doesn't apply....till we argue genesis 2.

adam means ''man'' shogun, and ''man'' most certainly named the brontosaurus! 93% 0f earth's inhabitants were dead before we even came in to existence i have read, but that certainly did not stop man, (adam), from naming them?

 

[rdean]

[Emphasis added] You might want to brush up on your definitions:

[Emphasis added] (Oxford Dictionary)

here, you might do yourself a favor when participating in threads having anything to do with science concepts that are not defined by personal belief:

History of scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? LOL. Dilettante.

faith:

1. strong belief in something, esp. without proof
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence

I think that this is a site that might help. Click on the numbers that show up on the left. Your thought processes seem unfocused. Perhaps it's the duel personality? Don't worry, you are never too old to learn something not dogma. Something worthwhile. Give it a try.
Knowledge, no matter where is comes from, is good. Mysticism is not knowledge.

The Scientific Method Research Report #1 ~ What Is Science?

 

[rdean]

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.

Ok then when you prove God doesn't exist i'll show you where I got that theory from. Please provide EVIDENCE, as it is necessary. Support your assertation that god doesn't exist with a lil bit more than your laughable attemts at doucebaggery.




NOOB

Oh and don't get butthurt, its all fun where i'm sitting

I sent a letter to God and it came back unopened. If he was so powerful, then why couldn't he open a letter?