Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

..Belief in Darwin is no different than belief in any other religion.
All are based on faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

Lying/sinning Bimb0!
Evolution belief is based on 160 years of ever-growing and overwhelming EVIDENCE.
God/S have none. Just faith/belief without evidence.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Why are you assigning your ID’iot creationerism to Voltaire or Faraday or Euler or James Clark Maxwell? The modern cabal of ID’iot creationer ministries has little to do with belief in some unnamed supernatural designer but is more centered on Christian fundamentalism.

The belief that the universe was designed i.e. ID was the norm for scientists until quite recently.

 

[Robert W]

Obviously you haven't read any of my post - or you simply lack any ability to comprehend statements.

There is no danger from a God to me - because only religious folks buy into that. - therefore they got all reasons to be afraid of the mass murderer.

Or you lack the ability to comprehend statements. Think that over. Why would you engage in discussing god when you say you do not believe in GOD.

 

[Robert W]

Just faith/belief without evidence.
`

You have faith there is no GOD and have not produced evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fake news

Fake news

Parker’s plea is that faith in God and an acceptance of modern science is indeed possible without holding on to a naïve biblical literalism.

That is the good part of the Genesis Enigma. Unfortunately, Parker takes on far more than can be sufficiently addressed in his 280-page book, leaving both conservative and progressive Christian readers wholly unconvinced.

As such just a plea - without any proof - as expected by a person who believes in superstition, aka a God or ID.

Palmer, wrote a book about the astounding accuracy of the Bible, 3 thousand years ago, stating the order of the evolution of life on or planet….exactly the presentation that science now accepts as the fact.


But you didn't answer the question: how did the Hebrews, 3000 years ago, living in a desert, just happen to correctly state the order of creation accepted by science today?


You didn't answer because the answer identifies you as an absolute ignorant bigot.


That egg on your face: don't remove it......it's an improvement.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At the time, I lived as a 1st grader in Oakland, CA during WW2. At the school, an invitation was offered to attend Catholic teaching and I did go to one class. It was not on campus. It was at a suitable location. At that time my parents had not exposed me to religion at all.

I would like to hear more about your decision, and the effect that decison had on you.......and why.

Please.

 

[abu afak]

You have faith there is no GOD and have not produced evidence.

Wrong.
I DON"T KNOW if there's a god/godS but there is NO Evidence...
unless you got some moron.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Everybody here would do well to listen to at least the first few minutes of this famous debate. Neither side disparages the other, neither side attacks the personality or character of the other. This is how true intellectuals discuss things. Both are recognized experts and scholars of philosophy.

 

[abu afak]

Everybody here would do well to listen to at least the first few minutes of this famous debate. Neither side disparages the other, neither side attacks the personality or character of the other. This is how true intellectuals discuss things.

If there was anything new, and 1948 certainly isn't, I would listen, but the outline for this debate is quite clear.
There's...
1. We don't know/know yet.
2. God of the Gaps.

Gameover.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If there was anything new, and 1948 certainly isn't, I would listen, but the outline for this debate is quite clear.
There's...
1. We don't know/know yet.
2. God of the Gaps.

Gameover.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

abu afak

I made a proposition earlier, it was that nature cannot explain the presence of nature. Laws cannot explain the presence of laws. So if we cannot use nature, laws, naturalism then we must seek a non-natural explanation, aka a supernatural explanation.

Do you disagree with me? if so, why? what specifically do you disagree with?

 

[Kruska]

The point being made is that holding a belief in God was not a hindrance to doing science,

I never stated the opposite - see Volt, Galileo, Copernicus

there's no conflict.

There is one - the moment science based results, contradict or prove the Bible to be incorrect.
If the Bible is incorrect - "which is proven" - it automatically questions the existence of a GOD - since believers claim that the Bible consists of Gods Words!!

Anyway - you need to differentiate between believing the Bibles contents, and as such those words supposedly spoken by the Bible God - aka a God solely speaking to Hebrews - and the existence of a so called Higher Being - who might not be a Hebrew and talks to everyone - e.g. Christians who claim; God talked to me.

That a non-Bible related God or a "higher being" supposedly caused/designed/directed evolution - would be another topic.

 

[Robert W]

Wrong.
I DON"T KNOW if there's a god/godS but there is NO Evidence...
unless you got some moron.
`

You have not yet looked for all of the evidence. Actually not even part of the evidence.
Do you own a telescope? If so, explore the universe and try to figure out who created it. Surely you don't think it created itself? Study dirt and get educated if anybody, any scientist, demonstrates creating life using dirt!!!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I never stated the opposite - see Volt, Galileo, Copernicus

There is one - the moment science based results, contradict or prove the Bible to be incorrect.

Or an interpretation of the Bible to be incorrect, which is what Galileo argued.

If the Bible is incorrect - "which is proven" - it automatically questions the existence of a GOD - since believers claim that the Bible consists of Gods Words!!

There's no way to "prove" the Bible incorrect though (so far as I'm aware anyway) you can only prove some interpretation to be incorrect.

Anyway - you need to differentiate between believing the Bibles contents, and as such those words supposedly spoken by the Bible God - aka a God solely speaking to Hebrews - and the existence of a so called Higher Being - who might not be a Hebrew and talks to everyone - e.g. Christians who claim; God talked to me.

I do, I only mentioned Bible because that was the core issue of disagreement between Galileo and the authorities of the day, how to interpret the Bible which actually says nothing about a physically geocentric universe, so Galileo was correct and the authorities were wrong.

That a non-Bible related God or a "higher being" supposedly caused/designed/directed evolution - would be another topic.

 

[Kruska]

Or you lack the ability to comprehend statements. Think that over. Why would you engage in discussing god when you say you do not believe in GOD.

Again you proof that you can't comprehend statements - I don't just claim that the Bible God doesn't exist - but I forwarded proof.

And this discussion is about, Life being designed by God (which it isn't) or due to natural/coincidental occurrences on earth and the universe. - aka evolutionary processes on earth.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If there was anything new, and 1948 certainly isn't, I would listen, but the outline for this debate is quite clear.
There's...
1. We don't know/know yet.
2. God of the Gaps.

Gameover.
`

It's odd isn't it, how I am the world's most famous and erudite detective and you are a jellyfish, this likely explains the vacuity of many of your posts.

 

[Robert W]

I never stated the opposite - see Volt, Galileo, Copernicus

There is one - the moment science based results, contradict or prove the Bible to be incorrect.
If the Bible is incorrect - "which is proven" - it automatically questions the existence of a GOD - since believers claim that the Bible consists of Gods Words!!

Anyway - you need to differentiate between believing the Bibles contents, and as such those words supposedly spoken by the Bible God - aka a God solely speaking to Hebrews - and the existence of a so called Higher Being - who might not be a Hebrew and talks to everyone - e.g. Christians who claim; God talked to me.

That a non-Bible related God or a "higher being" supposedly caused/designed/directed evolution - would be another topic.

Let's try to direct our attention to the creation of all life forms. Humans are able to survive on eating just the correct vegetables. They can survive and not eat any meat. So what do you believe created vegetables? What was alive that creates vegetables? Think like you want to be logical. No need for science. I would judge that it would take primitave man some time to decide to try to eat any animal. It would be more convenient to eat just plants. Would you care to explain the beginning of plants?

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, humans can survive by eating only plants, as long as they carefully plan their diet to ensure they are getting all the necessary nutrients, including protein, vitamins, and minerals; a well-balanced plant-based diet is considered nutritionally adequate and can support human survival and health

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's try to direct our attention to the creation of all life forms. Humans are able to survive on eating just the correct vegetables. They can survive and not eat any meat. So what do you believe created vegetables? What was alive that creates vegetables? Think like you want to be logical. No need for science. I would judge that it would take primitave man some time to decide to try to eat any animal. It would be more convenient to eat just plants. Would you care to explain the beginning of plants?

AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, humans can survive by eating only plants, as long as they carefully plan their diet to ensure they are getting all the necessary nutrients, including protein, vitamins, and minerals; a well-balanced plant-based diet is considered nutritionally adequate and can support human survival and health

There's a technique (if I can embellish it with such a term) used by evolution devotees, that I call Darwin of the gaps I think you'll see an example of this when Robert W replies...

 

[Kruska]

Or an interpretation of the Bible to be incorrect, which is what Galileo argued.

The Hebrew BIBLE does not state that the earth is the center of the Universe - start reading the OT.

The Roman Church adopted the Ptolemaic, or Geocentric Model of the Universe, which stated that the Earth was the center of all creation, and thus the Roman Church embedded this scientific assumption into their NT.

There's no way to "prove" the Bible incorrect though (so far as I'm aware anyway) you can only prove some interpretation to be incorrect.

To STATE (not interpret) that Adam&Eve were the first Humans designed by God to Gods liking - and stating (not interpreting) that the genealogical countdown therefore places A&E at around 6300 B.C. already is proven to be wrong/FALSE - same goes for the STATEMENTS regarding the Flood. (and not some interpretation). Neither is the issue of there only being Adam,Eve and Kain to "generate" future siblings an interpretation - but a STATEMENT in the Bible.

I do, I only mentioned Bible because that was the core issue of disagreement between Galileo and the authorities of the day,

Wrong as shown above.

BTW, Discussing with you seems needless - since you simply lack knowledge and twist everything around.

 

[Kruska]

Everybody here would do well to listen to at least the first few minutes of this famous debate. Neither side disparages the other, neither side attacks the personality or character of the other. This is how true intellectuals discuss things. Both are recognized experts and scholars of philosophy.

Totally meaningless - since both agree onto a higher being - and scientific research based onto 1940'ies, is in noway comparable with today's scientific knowledge.
Total waste of time - my time