rrobs
Well-Known Member
I knew you'd say something like that, but Rude? Really? That bad, huh?
You seem to be a pretty sensitive guy. Maybe try not to take people who you think are idiots (like me apparently) so seriously.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can you accept evolution and still have a spiritual reality, and/or a God faith
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
You seem to be a pretty sensitive guy. Maybe try not to take people who you think are idiots (like me apparently) so seriously.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Exhibit A in fundamentalist black/white thinking. Fascinating.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You'd think so.
Audie
Veteran Member
It is interesting, really.
I see it over and over, the binary, black-white, not shades of grey, no other possibilities thing, with fundies.
I wonder what the deal is. Perhaps a psychologist
could provide some insight.
Maybe. I tend to think of them the way I do of
chiropractors.
Audie
Veteran Member
He has a tendency to say the same things over and over.
One size fits all.
Like "you do not understand what evidence is; i could teach you"
"you do not debate properly"
and
"that is rude".
As for quoting scrip as a response to anything other than
a question about scrip tho-
I'd say, just do not bother. It will have nothing but a
negative effect on whatever you are trying to demonstrate.
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
How did you determine that these fossils did not have any ancestors?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
You assume that after searching a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record that we should have found a fossil for every species that has ever existed. That is a bad assumption.
We don't know if any of these fossils had any ancestors. You don't know, either. Therefore, you can't make any claims about any fossil not having ancestors.
Audie
Veteran Member
I dont think that is what he said.
Of course, what he did say is so heavily loaded
with editorial cant that it would take a while to
unpack it.
Audie
Veteran Member
If you see a dog, you assume it had ancestors.
If only only one specimen of some creature has
ever been found, and all that is known of it is
one jaw bone, we ASSUME that it had a mommy
and daddy, and that there was at one time more
to the creature than just a jaw.
Our creationist may have a problem with those
assumptions.
stvdv
Veteran Member
29 jun 2018 stvdv 014 14
. If Gravity is a force of god, why not write God? I don't care, was just an observation. And I do love your quote a lot.
[if Gravity stopped]
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. Was a pleasure to read. Some interesting thoughts popped up. And although I believe in God [being consciousness, as the basis of all creation], you did not offend me for 1 second. Glad we have Atheists. They keep [smart] theists humble. They make you realize that you don't know; you only believe.
One thing Atheists and I have in common about God is that we all don't have evidence [don't know]. Nice to have a similarity with Atheists.
Smart, and I feel that. Your reply is very clear. Understanding is still a problem when talking about God though; no definition/experience/proof
Nicely put. Takes Donar and Wodan out of the equation. Reading your words "If you call Gravity a force of god, is not something an atheist will argue about". Felt like a "connection with atheists". Nice to find common ground.
I see it as mental picture, that's why I call it description. I did have several experiences. Different ones also. If God is 1 thing, should be 1 experience IMO. But then again if God is related to the Universe it might be a vast experience which even my brain can't handle
I would say "impossible to accept as real". The Truth should be one and the same to all IMO. Not 7 billion mental pictures or ideas.
I mentioned "dimension" because I got my experiences during meditation. But even those are just some astral experiences or mystical experiences. But never the "Full experience". Understandable "might be just too big to handle". Or "God" can be all together [force,entity,other concept].
But still a problem here. God still is not defined. But Gravity being scientific gives you feeling/connection [it's about feeling IMO]. Funny Gravity Big, god small
. If Gravity is a force of god, why not write God? I don't care, was just an observation. And I do love your quote a lot.That would be fun though. The moment I have proof then "pooff" proof flies out of the window, and I also, or bump my headunless you will claim that gravity is manipulated and maintained by god and it can stop any time god wishes it. then you will have to present some evidence to support this claim
[if Gravity stopped]Agreed. But you are much too nice and respectable in your wording. You won't offend others, you do not impose your view. You share !!! Perfect.
Again you say it in a decent way "If he tells he thinks..". In my experience some non-Atheists lack this respectful wording, claim belief as truth.
True. Only with believe you never are sure. Uncertainty drives some nuts. That might be the reason get upset if others don't share their belief. I think that is just how our human psyche works. If you then believe in Hell and doom, I need little imagination why they get upset. Much more at stake for them IMO.
Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts. Was a pleasure to read. Some interesting thoughts popped up. And although I believe in God [being consciousness, as the basis of all creation], you did not offend me for 1 second. Glad we have Atheists. They keep [smart] theists humble. They make you realize that you don't know; you only believe.
One thing Atheists and I have in common about God is that we all don't have evidence [don't know]. Nice to have a similarity with Atheists.
Last edited:
It is rude IMO to present quotes from scripture when actual input from a thinking human being is expected.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
From what I've read, black/white thinking is an identifying characteristic of fundamentalists. So I figure it's not that being a fundamentalist leads you to black/white thinking, rather it's that being a black/white thinker predisposes you to fundamentalism.
Audie
Veteran Member
Pretty much what I would think is the case.
The idea of absolutes appeals to people who
cannot handle ambiguity and shades of meaning,
still less moral relativism and situation ethics.
Where did you find something to read about it?
Thermos aquaticus
Well-Known Member
It's not even an assumption that needs to be made. Without DNA we can never determine if any fossil is a direct ancestor of descendant of another fossil or living species. Ultimately, it is the mixture of features in fossils that allow us to test the predictions made by the theory of evolution, and we don't need to establish relationships of direct lineage in order to compare features between fossils.
Even more to the point, there is no fossil that any creationist would ever accept as being ancestral to another fossil species or living species, so why do they even ask for them to begin with? It's a fools errand. Creationists stick their head in the sand and refuse to address evidence when it is supplied them.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Probably the most insightful and informative thing I've read on that subject is: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/
THIS BOOK also was informative, as was THIS ESSAY.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
\
I've asked you repeatedly if you've ever been in a science classroom. You've never answered that question.
You have people all over this forum telling you over and over that your claim that "evolution is taught as absolute proof," is an erroneous one. That in actuality, science deals with the best available evidence, and is always subject to change, given the emergence of new evidence. That it is not, in fact, taught as "absolute proof." In fact, these same people have told you repeatedly that there is no "proof" in science. So where is it that you think these people have come up with this idea about science? Has it never occurred to you that it may have been what they were taught in science classrooms, where they would also have been taught the scientific method? I mean, how many times can you make the same claim in light of the apparent evidence that people who actually understand evolution and the scientific method are constantly telling you that scientific findings are never taught as "absolute proof." The only thing I can conclude is that you've never been in a science classroom and therefore have no idea what goes on there.
You know, I keep seeing you make claims like this, and I'm really wondering what you're basing that on. Is it just something you've heard somewhere?Humans did not invent science.....they merely study what already exists and try to understand what mechanisms drive life on earth and complex laws in the wider universe. Someone with great intelligence had to put that material there in the first place IMO.' Nothing comes from nothing' and 'all life springs from pre-existing life'...science knows this and yet argues against it in evolution.
What is that old adage? "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".....science tends to gloss over what it can't prove, giving the impression that things are considered a foregone conclusion, but are in reality based on very flimsy evidence....as I said, it appears to be an elaborate castle built on nothing but toothpicks.
And without the intelligence unique to humankind, science would be as useful to us as it is to my dog. I don't see too many in the animal kingdom inventing much of anything. If they figure out how to use a stick, naturalists get all excited....
You are gazing at the wrong parent.
That is just the point...there are "mountains" of "evidence" that all rely on interpretation to confirm their validity. Bias dictates how evidence is to be interpreted. That means that provable evidence...i.e. of the substantiated kind amount to a hill of beans in reality. All they have are mountains of assumption and suggestions if the truth be told.
If only it was taught that way. But we all know it isn't. Any assault on the 'sacred cow' is met with insults about one's intelligence and an accusation of not understanding what evolution is. I understand perfectly well what they claim evolution is and I strongly contest it.
No, by dropping the word "prove" you simply reinforce the truth about what is taught....nothing can be proven, therefore there is no truth....just supposition. Its a poor substitute IMO.
When scientists figure that out, I'm sure they will let you know. They are infants in this area of scientific knowledge. Just because they cannot invent a test for something, doesn't mean it isn't there...surely deep space exploration is continually proving this to be true?
I've asked you repeatedly if you've ever been in a science classroom. You've never answered that question.
You have people all over this forum telling you over and over that your claim that "evolution is taught as absolute proof," is an erroneous one. That in actuality, science deals with the best available evidence, and is always subject to change, given the emergence of new evidence. That it is not, in fact, taught as "absolute proof." In fact, these same people have told you repeatedly that there is no "proof" in science. So where is it that you think these people have come up with this idea about science? Has it never occurred to you that it may have been what they were taught in science classrooms, where they would also have been taught the scientific method? I mean, how many times can you make the same claim in light of the apparent evidence that people who actually understand evolution and the scientific method are constantly telling you that scientific findings are never taught as "absolute proof." The only thing I can conclude is that you've never been in a science classroom and therefore have no idea what goes on there.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Rude? That bad, huh? I would think that's being a bit over sensitive, but if you feel it's rude, I wouldn't want to take it away from you. I understand everybody has different tolerance levels.
Why in the world would you would intimate that I am not a thinking human being? It actually intimates you don't think, which I know is not really true. I'm sure you do think and come up with many good ideas. But you leave yourself open to criticism by making such sweeping and unfounded claims.
Getting to the point, the original post is entitled Evolution vs Creationism. If I can't quote from the book that defines creationism, wouldn't it be fair that evolutionist couldn't use their science books?
Would you get into the boxing ring with both hands tied behind your back? Would that classify as a thinking human being in your book? If so, I'd be super glad to go a few rounds (actually a few seconds) with you for the prize money. I don't really think about fighting anybody, just illustrating how lopsided your thinking really is in this matter.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Me too. I was contemplating doing it yet again, but then decided against such an act of futility.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
All Christians see things as black and white? That's not looking at things as black and white at all!
Last edited: