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

[Si modo]

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?

Why would an atheist send a letter to God? But more importantly, why would an atheist care why God couldn't open it? I don't.

 

[Diuretic]

Beliefs can be gained either affectively or cognitively. A religious belief is probably gained in an affective manner, beliefs about the causes of natural phenomena are probably gained cognitively. I think - and just reflecting on the 'religious scientists' sub-text - that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have religious beliefs (gained affectively) and scientific beliefs (accepting the validity of certain scientific theories for example) which are gained cognitively.

I would also think that religious beliefs are gained before scientific ones so a religious person becoming a scientist and keeping their religious faith seems quite plausible to me. Someone in another thread mentioned Teilhard, a good example of a religious person being able to practise science. Whether or not the religious scientist maintains his or her religious beliefs when confronted with science is a matter of personal faith and not reason I think.

 

[Diuretic]

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?

Maybe you used the Phony Express?

 

[Si modo]

Beliefs can be gained either affectively or cognitively. A religious belief is probably gained in an affective manner, beliefs about the causes of natural phenomena are probably gained cognitively. I think - and just reflecting on the 'religious scientists' sub-text - that it's perfectly reasonable for someone to have religious beliefs (gained affectively) and scientific beliefs (accepting the validity of certain scientific theories for example) which are gained cognitively.

I would also think that religious beliefs are gained before scientific ones so a religious person becoming a scientist and keeping their religious faith seems quite plausible to me. Someone in another thread mentioned Teilhard, a good example of a religious person being able to practise science. Whether or not the religious scientist maintains his or her religious beliefs when confronted with science is a matter of personal faith and not reason I think.

Exactly. There are a lot of believing scientists who are not religious, though. Almost all are able to do science quite well.

 

[BigBarry]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

 

[Care4all]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

littlebarry, you need to grow up. Find what you believe in and leave other people alone to what they believe in...when that happens, then call yourself BigBarry...cuz right now, you only show the insecurity of a child who has lost his way and who wants some sort of external approval for his OWN personal decisions....

i don't want to discourage you from searching for what you can believe in, but you will find that it's best done privately, this kind of personal soul searching, so to speak...and imho....

care

 

[Shogun]

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

see, THIS is why you people are so shitty at science. I can't disprove a negative, stupid. Now, just to drive the point home, lets see you prove that ZUES DOESN'T EXIST. See how fun that is, stupid?




clearly, science is not your friend, heyseed. I suggest you go ahead and stick with reading fortunes in the guts of chickens and whatever else your kind do to explain reality.

 

[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 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?

verse 2.
darkness was over the surface of the deep


I'm reading the direct quote. HELLO!





and no, Adam was not merely "man" according to dogma junkies any more than Moses was merely "jew". Othniel Charles Marsh, the man who NAMED THE ******* BRONTOSAURUS, might just differ with your disneyland take on the bible.

 

[logical4u]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

In the OT book Numbers, the "people" went to Moses and begged him to ask of the Lord that He not appear before them in a pillar of fire or a column of smoke for it made them afraid.

He gave us the Ten Commandments: a set of rules to apply to all men (up to that point, men's laws were selective, according to society's rank). After that, He gave us His son to teach us: spirituality, faith and hope (the real kind). At that point, He has given us reason and knowledge of Him (the need to seek spirituality). Every person was given those two gifts; it is up to them how they use them. He has already told us every thing we "need" to know. Why should He make an appearance for those that do not "use" His gifts?

 

[HUGGY]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

littlebarry, you need to grow up. Find what you believe in and leave other people alone to what they believe in...when that happens, then call yourself BigBarry...cuz right now, you only show the insecurity of a child who has lost his way and who wants some sort of external approval for his OWN personal decisions....

i don't want to discourage you from searching for what you can believe in, but you will find that it's best done privately, this kind of personal soul searching, so to speak...and imho....

care

Find what you believe in and leave other people alone to what they believe in.

Like the mormans and jehovas witnesses?

 

[rdean]

Pilg, I can prove to you that god doesn't exist. Because if god did exist, do you think he'd only show himself to douchebaggers, or would he let everyone see him? Like maybe a press conference on the white house lawn?

In the OT book Numbers, the "people" went to Moses and begged him to ask of the Lord that He not appear before them in a pillar of fire or a column of smoke for it made them afraid.

He gave us the Ten Commandments: a set of rules to apply to all men (up to that point, men's laws were selective, according to society's rank). After that, He gave us His son to teach us: spirituality, faith and hope (the real kind). At that point, He has given us reason and knowledge of Him (the need to seek spirituality). Every person was given those two gifts; it is up to them how they use them. He has already told us every thing we "need" to know. Why should He make an appearance for those that do not "use" His gifts?

What nonsense. If a magical god were going to "appear" before me, I would want to see magical smoke or fire. How fun. I would just hope that he keeps his shorts on. He is wearing shorts, isn't he?

 

[k2skier]

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. Because you or no one else can.

First, it's an exercise in futility to prove something; one can only provide supporting information for it. Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics...

Secondly, it's more an exercise in futility to prove ones religious beliefs to another. Because there's many, many different religions that ALL claim to be the only one and the only correct one, hence humans history of killing over ones beliefs.

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.

For my choice I use reasoning, not faith.

 

[Ryan]

Isn't science just discovering god's blueprints? If not, why not?

I have only read the first page of this thread but it is similar topic being covered on another thread where I have been posting. To be brief, neither creation nor evolution theories by themselves can account for the origin of modern man. The supressed evidence suggests that Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man were separate species and probably co-existed with no missing link. At least no "missing link" to be found in fossil records.

 

[Ryan]

I bet christians of yesteryear found themselves having to roll over and ASSIMILATE the findings of Galileo too.

Like who, Catholic Cleric Copernicus?

 

[Si modo]

....

.... First, it's an exercise in futility to prove something; one can only provide supporting information for it.

Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics......

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

Karl Popper on logic of falsification

The falsifying mode of inference here referred to -- the way in which the falsification of a conclusion entails the falsification of the system from which it is derived -- is the modus tollens of classical logic. It may be described as follows:
Let p be a conclusion of a system t of statements which may consist of theories and initial conditions (for the sake of simplicity I will not distinguish between them). We may then symbolize the relation of derivability (analytical implication) of p from t by 't -> p' which may be read 'p follows from t'. Assume p to be false, which we may write '~p', to be read 'not-p'. Given the relation of deducibility, t -> p, and the assumption ~p, we can then infer ~t (read not-t); that is, we regard t as falsified. If we denote the conjunction (simultaneous assertion) of two statements by putting a point between the symbols standing for them, we may also write the falsifying inference thus: ((t->p)•~p)->~t, or in words: 'If p is derivable from t, and if p is false, then t also is false'

By means of this mode of inference we falsify the whole system (the theory as well as the initial conditions) which was required for the deduction of the statement p, i.e. of the falsified statement. Thus it cannot be asserted of any one statement of the system that it is, or is not, specifically upset by the falsification. Only if p is independent of some part of the system can we say that this part is not involved in the falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Don't play at something out of your league.

....

Secondly, it's more an exercise in futility to prove ones religious beliefs to another.

Because there's many, many different religions that ALL claim to be the only one and the only correct one, hence humans history of killing over ones beliefs.

.... 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.

For my choice I use reasoning, not faith.

Go for it. I don't give a shit when it comes to beliefs. I do give a shit when those who argue logic don't use it.

 

[Ryan]

....

.... First, it's an exercise in futility to prove something; one can only provide supporting information for it.

Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics......

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.



The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Don't play at something out of your league.

.... Because there's many, many different religions that ALL claim to be the only one and the only correct one, hence humans history of killing over ones beliefs.

.... 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.

For my choice I use reasoning, not faith.

Go for it. I don't give a shit when it comes to beliefs. I do give a shit when those who argue logic don't use it.

Si modo, I have to disagree with but just to a degree. The trap that people often fall into is that they misread human faults as those inherent to the field. Science, religion, politics et cetera are all fields impacted by human nature. So is the persecution such as the case of Galileo exclusive to the field of religion? No, for that to be true then the field of science must be totally free from human corruption which is certainly not the case.

In the law catagory of the USMB on a school textbook thread, the debate has also focused on the theories of creation verse evolution and I have listed numerous examples where the science field displayed many faults cited common with the field of religion. For instance the "Piltdown Man" fraud, the racist views of Darwin, the suppression and destruction of the "Kennewick Man" site, the persecution of Thomas E. Lee and other examples. The specific reasons for these faults vary except in the sense that all are a result of the human failings not exclusive to the religious.

I will not concede a false point that science belongs only to the non-religious. There are thousands of examples that prove otherwise such as Copernicus, Louis Pastuer and Lewis Leakey. It seems to me the non-religious try to portray themselves as a superior in intellect and the facts just don't bear this out.

 

[Father Time]

No evolution does not mean there can't be a God.

If you were to change the environment the creatures you would likely get from evolution would change as well.

Now if you had say total and complete control over all the environments as well as knowledge of what you were doing you could make evolution cough up something close to what you wanted.That is if you had those powers

If I were God I'd be more inclined to let evolution make the animals than to personally design every last one of them, but hey I'm lazy.

 

[Diuretic]

Falsifiability - going to stick my neck out here but doesn't that refer to the quality of a phenomenon or claim? Not sure but I think it has something to do with the nature of something being amenable to scientific method.

 

[k2skier]

....

.... First, it's an exercise in futility to prove something; one can only provide supporting information for it.

Completely false, science explains a lot of basic physics principals now that we had no clue about 2,000 ago; the Bibles, deities and dogmas would be very different if man in BC times knew just a little about astrology and basic physics......

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

So you believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth huh?

These are 2 very significant things that science proved correct over the church...

 

[BigBarry]

Wrong. Science doesn't prove anything, it only falsifies.

dogbreath, I've always wondered, is going through life as an imbecile easy or hard?