How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith

[Subduction Zone]

"Self-educated within the agenda."

Yup, sounds like our boy.

Muslims are past experts at reinterpreting the Quran to match the science they are willing to accept. How many "scientific miracles of the Quran " have we been subjected to lately??

Neither you nor I have been too impressed when theists have tried to mix science and religion. All that happens is that we see how lacking their knowledge is.

 

[rrobs]

Let me rephrase then.

Your "evos" here, myself included are far far better
educated than you in the sciences.

I went to a private school that began teaching science in the 6th grade. I went to college (Georgia Tech) and took 2 years of biology plus other sciences including 2 quarters of evolution. Now, I'm not claiming to be the world's premier scientist, but I probably know more than the average guy, albeit less than you and perhaps others here. The point is, you shouldn't be telling me I know nothing and therefore should not take part a scientific discussion.

What you dont just get wrong is news of the obvious.

What?

Yet you offer lessons and suggest those interested could learn more?

Never tried to teach you science. As we've established, you have more knowledge than I in that field. If I ever wanted to learn more about science perhaps I'd go to you. What I offered to teach was the Bible and that is something about which I know more than you. It doesn't make me any better than you, I've simply spent more time in the subject and I therefore am better versed than you.

You mentioned you read the Bible 2 times. Then you must know about the mystery Paul revealed concerning the Jews and the Gentiles. I would be curious as to your thoughts on that mystery. Do you know what the Bereans did to cause God to call them more noble than those in Thessalonica? Both are in the Bible though, and, yes, I do know it. I'm going out on a limb here by saying this, but you probably don't even know what I'm talking about. So I could in fact teach you something about the Bible. Why is that so offensive to you?

Tty this- give us one fact contrary to ToE, one for "God".
One or the other, or both.

What?

If you cannot, you've nothing-zero- to teach us except maybe how tiresome you can be

The key word there is "if." Your conclusion is based on that "if" being in the negative, that I can't teach you anything. But if it's actually true, if I can teach you about the Bible, then your premise is false. I explained above how my knowledge of the Bible is indeed more extensive than yours, much like your knowledge of science is superior to mine.

 

[Audie]

I went to a private school that began teaching science in the 6th grade. I went to college (Georgia Tech) and took 2 years of biology plus other sciences including 2 quarters of evolution. Now, I'm not claiming to be the world's premier scientist, but I probably know more than the average guy, albeit less than you and perhaps others here. The point is, you shouldn't be telling me I know nothing and therefore should not take part a scientific discussion.

Did I say you know "nothing"?

No, I did not.

Did I say you should not take part?

No.

So, you have no point.

 

[rrobs]

No scientist claims to have anything 100%. Discoveries are made constantly that refine our knowledge of evolutionary theory. This does not mean that evolutionary theory as it is currently understood is necessarily wrong. Think of reality as a circle. Now, you can make a decent approximation of a circle with an octagon. You can make a much better approximation with a dodecagon.

Now, just because the dodecagon is a better, more complete approximation of the reality of a circle, that doesn't make the octagon inherently wrong. You can think of scientific advance this way, as a progression from fewer sided shapes to more sided shapes. We will probably never get to the point where science is a perfect circle, but with every refinement, we get closer. Science is not about going from a completely wrong theory directly to a completely right one, which is how creationists seem to think it should work. I hope this descriptive tool helps clarify things a little.

I'm not so sure I was unclear about anything. What did I say that would contradict what you just said? I know you went into more detail, but that doesn't negate anything I said. At least I don't think so.

 

[Audie]

How?

Well, in school we had science teachers that were part of our religious school and they proposed middle-ground thinking like "7 days but they're God's days which can be eons."

I'd also like to think that a God who doesn't want us to improve and grow as people (to evolve) is not a God worth worshiping. God wants us to be like God. We are called to evolve.

Those people may have been teachers,
but they sure were not science teachers.

 

[rrobs]

Did I say you know "nothing"?

No, I did not.

I stand corrected. You didn't say, "rrobs knows nothing."

But you did say,

"Yet they (I assume I'm part of "they") insist it must be, is, there. Why? Coz they choose
to say the bible tells 'em so.

Talk about intellectual bankrutcy!"

Excuse me for mistaking your compliment for a denunciation. I just misunderstood. Glad you're on my side.

 

[rrobs]

The only problem for you is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs. There are mountains of evidence for the theory of evolution. Scientists follow the evidence.

Scientist used to have evidence of a flat earth.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Scientist used to have evidence of a flat earth.

Oh yes? Which ones? What evidence?

 

[Audie]

I stand corrected. You didn't say, "rrobs knows nothing."

But you did say,

"Yet they (I assume I'm part of "they") insist it must be, is, there. Why? Coz they choose
to say the bible tells 'em so.

Talk about intellectual bankrutcy!"

Excuse me for mistaking your compliment for a denunciation. I just misunderstood. Glad you're on my side.

There were two things, not just one, that you falsely
claimed.

As for the thing about "on your side", you are
continuing your false attributions.

The only thing you got right (actually only
half right) is "I misunderstood",

I say half, coz you still are wrong.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not so sure I was unclear about anything. What did I say that would contradict what you just said? I know you went into more detail, but that doesn't negate anything I said. At least I don't think so.

I believe it "negates", or rather "corrects" the misunderstanding apparent in the last two sentences of the post I desponded to. Simply put, improved accuracy doesn't invalidate earlier understanding. You seem to be implying that it does.

 

[rrobs]

Oh yes? Which ones? What evidence?

"Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century" Wikipedia

I'm not sure what the evidence was, nor am I interested in learning what it was, but they must have had something. Like Wiki says, many were brilliant by anybody's standard. I'm sure you could find a lot more info in our Google Overlord. Google knows all.

 

[Audie]

Oh yes? Which ones? What evidence?

Even if there were truth in what he says,
even if science existed then, there is a amusing
tacit acceptance of the fact that one has to go
back hundreds of years to find "science" operating
on a level comparable to that achieved by todays
creationists. (Aka "creo" for those who do not
even know that)

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

"Chinese astronomers, many of them brilliant men by any standards, continued to think in flat-earth terms until the seventeenth century" Wikipedia

I'm not sure what the evidence was, nor am I interested in learning what it was, but they must have had something. Like Wiki says, many were brilliant by anybody's standard. I'm sure you could find a lot more info in our Google Overlord. Google knows all.

And these Chinese astronomers were scientists, were they? They utilised the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions?

 

[Audie]

I believe it "negates", or rather "corrects" the misunderstanding apparent in the last two sentences of the post I desponded to. Simply put, improved accuracy doesn't invalidate earlier understanding. You seem to be implying that it does.

Say, Arm! Those are quite the quotes, "ungrateful indians"
and so on. Where'd you get those?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 5681651]
I'm not sure what the evidence was, nor am I interested in learning what it was, [/QUOTE] how very Freudian.

 

[rrobs]

There were two things, not just one, that you falsely
claimed.

Give me a break. Do you have any idea how many falsehoods I've allegedly fostered here? I miss one and you have to point it out to me! Gee, thanks. Don't know what I'd do without your input.

As for the thing about "on your side", you are continuing your false attributions.

So you're not on my side? Well, that just ruined my day. I was counting on your support.

The only thing you got right (actually only half right) is "I misunderstood", I say half, coz you still are wrong.

Thanks giving me credit for me being right about my misunderstanding (at least half right I guess, but I'll take whatever I can get).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientist used to have evidence of a flat earth.

Nope, they never did.

Now you do not even appear to know what a scientist is or what science is for that matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Give me a break. Do you have any idea how many falsehoods I've allegedly fostered here? I miss one and you have to point it out to me! Gee, thanks. Don't know what I'd do without your input.

At least you realize that you have made quite a few falsehoods. We make be making progress.

So you're not on my side? Well, that just ruined my day. I was counting on your support.

Thanks giving me credit for me being right about my misunderstanding (at least half right I guess, but I'll take whatever I can get).

It appears that you do not like how others, even your fellow Christians, do not approve of your actions here. There is a simple cure.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Say, Arm! Those are quite the quotes, "ungrateful indians"
and so on. Where'd you get those?

They're fictional book titles I made up to satirise the American tendency to sanitise, bowdlerise, self agrandise and mythologise their history.

 

[rrobs]

[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 5681651]
I'm not sure what the evidence was, nor am I interested in learning what it was,

how very Freudian.[/QUOTE]
So there is nothing in the world that you a) don't know about and b) don't care to learn? You think you can learn the entire range of human knowledge? That's pretty good, but I'm not that smart. I can only learn a small part of that human knowledge and I choose what I want to learn and other things I just let go. How is that Freudian?