The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[Boss]

Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com

We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.

 

[Boss]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.

Well I've never argued any of that so he's not using my same arguments. Sorry.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com

We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.

I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.

 

[sealybobo]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.

Lets recap

Your dad became a millionaire working a middle class job

Your dad thinks evolution is bullshit

You live with your dad and he buys you ATVs

Yet you think he is wrong??????


.

A. He doesn't quite have $1 million
B. He's smart enough to vote democratic
C. He can thank a union for his $. And when Ford outsourced the cafeteria that good job became a shitty job and he retired with 20 years.
D. He got a buyout on his pension. Probably $200k is buyout $. Again, thank a union.
E. His logic on creation is so ignorant. Being good at saving money doesn't make him a scientist.
F. The problem is too many people are ignorant on this. Especially in America. If he were in Europe still maybe he wouldn't be brainwashed and ignorant.
G. I still love him. It doesn't make him a bad person but people like this are holding us back scientifically. Wed probably already be on Mars if we stopped this ignorance.

H. I paid cash for my quad, I'm 9 payments away from having my condo on a lake paid off. My car is paid for. The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree. I'm rich bitch! Lol

 

[sealybobo]

No... FAITH is believing something without evidence... like believing macro-evolution theory.

Whenever I connect with Spiritual Nature, I feel the presence of Spiritual Nature around me. If I did not experience this, I couldn't believe it. I am a person who has little or no faith in things I have no evidence for. Now, I cannot "prove" to you this thing I experience anymore than Marsha Clark could prove OJ was guilty to his jury.... you reject my evidence because you don't believe in Spiritual Nature. But I don't need to prove it to you to know for myself it's real. Whether it "exists" is a matter of what your definition of "exist" means. I can't get any of you to answer me on that, so I don't know.

What a load of bollocks. Just because you feel the presence doesn't mean anybody else does. Your personal experience means nothing in the grand scheme of things. You might believe you're Jesus Christ, Greta Garbo or Elmer Fudd. Doesn't mean you are. You don't get to dictate the facts of what are or aren't based on your 'feelings'. I'll take scientific evidence any day.

I guess you weren't comprehending me... I don't care if you don't believe it. It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I never claimed I could prove anything to you. Scientific evidence is great and if I had it, I would present it and there wouldn't be any reason for these threads anymore. But Science deals with physical nature and this is not physical nature. It's spiritual nature. You are welcome to call it faith, but it's not faith if it's proven to me. And I certainly DO get to dictate the facts that are proven to myself, whether you like it or not.

We used to think God poofed adults into existence. Everyone believed that a God must have poofed adult animals into existing. No other possible explanation. Then one day evolution came along and squashed creationism which has zero evidence.

So you go with the bad theory and I'll go with science.

If you don't believe in macroevolution then you believe creationism. We have evidence you have none

 

[sealybobo]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.

WHAT? You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights? How scientifically snobbish of you!

How can you call God a theory? You have no evidence

God is a hypothesis.

What about my pink dragon theory? Should it get any respect or consideration yet

 

[sealybobo]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

We are all born atheists and are told stories about God at a very young age.

There are lots of reasons we came up with God. Have you seen The Cosmos series? They try to explain God is our ignorant fear of the unknown. What happens when we die? How did we get here? Wishful thinking. Lots of benefits to believing. And on top of all that we have religions like Mohammad moses Zeus Joseph Smith Mary Peter Paul Jesus. Either some of them are lying or all of them are. Either way we see how gullible people can be.

Today in the west more people than not believe in evolution. In Turkey most people believe in creation

 

[sealybobo]

Prove that God exists.

Exists HOW? What do you mean? I have repeatedly asked for some clarification on this... Who created God? What do you mean "created"? Who made God? What do you mean "made"? Until you can clarify what the hell you mean, I have no idea... that's up to you to tell me.

You cannot prove the existence physically of something spiritual any more than you can spiritually prove the existence of something physical. So what do you mean when you use these terms "exist" ... "created" ... "made" ...what does that MEAN? Physical existence? There's no physical proof for anything spiritual.... that would automatically render the spiritual thing physical, wouldn't it?

My dad last night was telling me how evolution is bullshit. Not only are we not related to other animals he say, he doesn't think whites blacks & Asians are related. He doesn't buy it. He thinks God poofed each of them separately.

And he uses all the same arguments you do.

Well I've never argued any of that so he's not using my same arguments. Sorry.

You think God poofed full grown bear into existence. Yes or no?

You think God poofed full grown horse into existence. True or false?

You think God poofed fully grown birds capable of feeding themselves into existence and that's how birds and all other species got started, yes or no?

You may accept some facts on evolution but you don't believe evolution is true. You believe creation. You can't believe both.

The only thing I would except is that "god" planted the life seed that became all the life we see today. But make no mistake you are related to the goldfish in your bowl or plate.

 

[Boss]

We used to think God poofed adults into existence. Everyone believed that a God must have poofed adult animals into existing. No other possible explanation. Then one day evolution came along and squashed creationism which has zero evidence.

So you go with the bad theory and I'll go with science.

If you don't believe in macroevolution then you believe creationism. We have evidence you have none

Well the problem is, Evolution doesn't apply to origin. Evolution can only apply to something that is already here. So Evolution, even if you could prove it 100% just as you've theorized it... still doesn't explain origin. And I hate to break it to you like this, but regardless of WHAT you believe, you believe in "poofing into existence" ...that's unavoidable. The question is only a matter of HOW it poofed into existence... random chance? a creator god? spiritual nature? We don't know. You dance around like a little moron, claiming we DO know... then, we don't know for sure, but then.. we really do know.,,,wait... no, not for sure... but still, we know and we're sure... well... pretty sure. ....Poofing is poofing to me.

And no... you have no evidence proving macro-evolution, if you did, you'd be able to produce it instead of coming here armed with your propaganda links from atheists who hate religious people.

 

[Boss]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.

In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right? So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.

 

[Boss]

Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com

We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.

I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.

Again... I have NO religious beliefs... I don't subscribe to organized religion. I am a Spiritualist like you. I agree with you wholeheartedly... and whenever people abandon Science and cling to a faith-based belief in a conclusion they've made, whether it's creation by a religious god or macroevolution and abiogenesis, they are no longer practicing Science.

Whenever people attempt to exploit Science to support their faith-based beliefs, people who respect Science have to speak up. If I were running around this forum claiming that Science proves God, I expect someone would challenge me on that. I would challenge someone who made that claim because I respect Science. So that's no different than people running around claiming Science proves their disbelief in God. We have a bunch of idiots here running around waving Science in our face and claiming it proves their faith-based belief in macro-evolution. I can't stand for that kind of exploitation of Science.

 

[Boss]

You may accept some facts on evolution but you don't believe evolution is true. You believe creation. You can't believe both.

Well... YES, you can believe both... and you can also believe that we don't know the answer to this. I can accept micro-evolution because there is scientific evidence that supports it... I don't believe in macro-evolution because it's faith-based and has no scientific support to date. But againnnnn...... NO kind of evolution explains ORIGIN!

To put this in simple terms your small mind might comprehend... ORIGIN is the "poofing into existence" of LIFE!

and no, for the record, I do not believe anything poofed fully-formed adult anything into existence. It could have... that's a possibility... I won't dismiss it as such... but I don't believe it because there isn't anything to support that belief other than faith.

Let's take this slowly... I believe in Spiritual Nature because physical nature cannot create itself... it's a paradoxical argument. Spiritual Nature created physical nature and it did so in such a precision way that it enabled the parameters required for life which it also created. Now... IF Spiritual Nature can create physical nature, the parameters for life and life itself... it can create as many life forms as it wants to. If it can create one single living cell and that spawns all the trillions of life forms... it can also create the trillions of life forms. And honestly, if it can do all that, it can also create them fully-formed and adult if it wants to. I don't believe that's what happened, but it could have.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Science is science, faith is faith. Many people are so dedicated to their faith that they automatically reject anything that threatens it. Science is not emotion, faith is. In the end, for an individual, it makes no difference, but great men have been punished by religious zealots for their scientific theories which were eventually proven correct. Check out Galileo.

Galileo is convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633 - HISTORY.com

We've already discussed Galileo. He endured the same condescending ridicule, appeals to popularity and refutation of his findings by people who assumed things are how they seem. Just as people here want to believe a baseless theory about common ancestry and how we all evolved from a single cell.... because that is how it seems.

I don't think you use the same standard for your religious beliefs as you do for science. Which I understand to some degree, they are in different realms, so comparative analysis is tricky. But that is the reason you should try. Man as a whole or individually can not advance without challenging his mind. It is a philosophical discussion in large part. I do appreciate your sincere approach, we could have a fun discussion face to face.

Again... I have NO religious beliefs... I don't subscribe to organized religion. I am a Spiritualist like you. I agree with you wholeheartedly... and whenever people abandon Science and cling to a faith-based belief in a conclusion they've made, whether it's creation by a religious god or macroevolution and abiogenesis, they are no longer practicing Science.

Whenever people attempt to exploit Science to support their faith-based beliefs, people who respect Science have to speak up. If I were running around this forum claiming that Science proves God, I expect someone would challenge me on that. I would challenge someone who made that claim because I respect Science. So that's no different than people running around claiming Science proves their disbelief in God. We have a bunch of idiots here running around waving Science in our face and claiming it proves their faith-based belief in macro-evolution. I can't stand for that kind of exploitation of Science.

I understand better where you are coming from, I think. Do you believe it's possible, with further evidence, that macro-evolution can be proven? If not, why?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why did you not answer mine? You believe in something that does not exist.

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.

In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right? So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.

Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?

 

[Boss]

I understand better where you are coming from, I think. Do you believe it's possible, with further evidence, that macro-evolution can be proven? If not, why?

I think anything is possible with Science. BUT... that requires open minds which haven't adopted a conclusion. Once you've made up your mind and believe something is concluded, you've stopped practicing Science... you're now practicing Faith. So.... all these bold statements that "Evolution is a FACT!" are conclusions. These are closed-minded people who are not interested in Science anymore because they've drawn their own conclusion and are now practicing a faith in their conclusion.

 

[Boss]

Depends on what you mean by "exist" ... you won't answer my question, so I can't tell you.

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.

In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right? So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.

Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?

Does it really matter? If Spiritual Nature created the parameters of our universe it also created physics and chemistry. As for WHEN it happened, I think that is something else we also don't know for certain. Today, we see people toss out this age of 13-14 billion years... but did you know that idea is relatively young?

It's fascinating how every generation of humans believes Science knows everything there is to know now... nothing new can be learned. I'm sure that a century or so ago, when scientists proclaimed the universe was a million years old, people ran around proclaiming that was an indisputable fact we must accept as the truth... but guess what? Science doesn't cooperate with your hubris... it continues to ask questions and discover new information. Humans draw conclusions, Science explores possibilities.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Perhaps dictionary.com would be of some help.

Or perhaps you could answer my question? The dictionary doesn't tell me what your context of "exist" means when referring to something not physical. You'll have to explain that to me before I can tell you if I believe in something that doesn't "exist". If you just want to be a hard head and stubbornly refuse to answer, we're at a stalemate here.

You see... I certainly think Spiritual Nature exists in a spiritual sense... a spiritual existence. BUT... You don't believe in Spiritual Nature, therefore, you can't believe in spiritual existence. For you, the only objective reality is physical and physical existence. If the spiritual existed physically, it would cease to be spiritual.... by definition.

I believe in a spiritual existence, and it took me years to logically get there, but I still could be wrong. I accept spiritualality mainly because the history of man is rife with the description of it, and it seems very unlikely that people from all different backgrounds and experiences would all sense a higher power, even in isolation from others. How could Man have a prevalent feeling if there were no cause. But I also think that most "religious" people use this spirituality to justify things that are unjust or untrue.

Well we're not far apart on our viewpoints. Religion is only evidence that humans are spiritually connected. They are man-made constructions created to rationalize our spiritual connection that we are certainly aware of. Now, religions do good things and bad things so I don't throw them under the bus. I don't believe in them but that's how many people make their spiritual connections.

In addition to what you said about the history of man's connection to something spiritual, let me add this to the mix... It is a logical paradox that physical nature could create itself. Things can't create themselves because in order to do so they would have to already exist... right? So there is only one logical explanation for what created physical nature and that is something that doesn't require physical existence.... i.e.; Spiritual Nature.

Ok, if we accept that a spiritual nature must precede a physical nature, how do you select the moment that physical nature begins? In other words, could it have begun 13 billion years ago from spiritual nature (commonly calculated/accepted age of the Universe by some), and from that moment chemistry, physics, etc, does the rest?

Does it really matter? If Spiritual Nature created the parameters of our universe it also created physics and chemistry. As for WHEN it happened, I think that is something else we also don't know for certain. Today, we see people toss out this age of 13-14 billion years... but did you know that idea is relatively young?

It's fascinating how every generation of humans believes Science knows everything there is to know now... nothing new can be learned. I'm sure that a century or so ago, when scientists proclaimed the universe was a million years old, people ran around proclaiming that was an indisputable fact we must accept as the truth... but guess what? Science doesn't cooperate with your hubris... it continues to ask questions and discover new information. Humans draw conclusions, Science explores possibilities.

I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.

As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.

 

[Boss]

I can't deny any of that. But I am not as willing as you to accept that a spiritual nature created man as he exist today, and also created man only after creating 1000s of other living forms, some of which came and went prior to man. There is a definite order to nature, even if we don't see it or as yet understand it.

As for the ultimate beginning - it really doesn't matter, because I think it is impossible to ever know. I can't reject that the spirit has always existed, but was not apparent until a thinking, rational being existed to express it, namely man. Nor can I reject that it is the fact that man is a thinking, feeling, rational, emotional creature which collectively created the spirit. It's impossible to prove or disprove either.

But again, we can go back to the logical paradox... Physical nature cannot create itself. Physical nature does exist and it's not eternal, so it must have been created by something and it has to be something outside of physical existence. Life also exists and even the most ardent Evolutionist Atheist doesn't believe life has eternally existed. They believe physical nature created life but that simply means Spiritual Nature created life indirectly through physical nature. If Spiritual Nature created physical nature and all the parameters in physical nature which support life and make it possible, then Spiritual Nature created life.

And of course Spiritual Nature did not create man as he is today. We can look back just a hundred years or so and see a remarkable difference in man from then until now... go back 1,000 years.... even more different was man... 10,000 years... man was nothing like he is today. My grandfather could lift 75 lb. bales of hay over his head and toss them in the barn loft all day long... if I tried that it would kill me. He did it until he was 80 years old. In just a couple of generations we've become weaker and wiser. So yes... man HAS evolved. That doesn't mean we share a common ancestor with a bale of hay. That idea is ludicrous and doesn't have any basis in Science. That is a conjecture, a speculation... mostly promoted by people who reject Spiritual Nature and seek to disprove God through the exploitation of Science.

 

[HUGGY]

There is no proof god exists either....shrug....

Are you looking for PHYSICAL proof? That might be your problem since God isn't PHYSICAL

And let's be clear... before someone identified Jupiter in a telescope, there was no proof Jupiter existed.... STILL... it DID exist, even when we didn't have proof.

I surmise that you probably don't know everything that Science has yet to discover. Just a guess... but unless you DO know, you can't ever make the claim that "no proof" of something is a valid reason to reject it's possibility.

You've been trying to prove god for 2000 years. Nothing. You're also comparing apples and oranges. You're trying to make out that physical science and believing in the flying spaghetti monster are of equitable value and have the same weight. They don't. One is based on faith. Nothing more.

WHAT? You don't believe EVERY theory has the same rights? How scientifically snobbish of you!

How can you call God a theory? You have no evidence

God is a hypothesis.

What about my pink dragon theory? Should it get any respect or consideration yet

Abso-fuckin-tutely! A pink dragon could be at least tied to sea serpents which have a long and respected history among the seafaring communities. Looking backward into the remains of animals and fishes embedded in the rock and sedimentary deposits there is evidence of huge carnivorous beings that inhabited the oceans and inland water. God bones? Not so much.