Just Accidental?

[ArtieE]

I hate to admit it but Deeje does have a point. Look at the image below. Who can possibly believe that this guy could exist accidentally? He must have been created.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10662424

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I hate to admit it but Dejee does have a point. Look at the image below. Who can possibly believe that this guy could exist accidentally? He must have been created.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10662424

Lol.

 

[Deeje]

@sayak83 Please don't waste your time posting science books and article in support of organic evolution. Since I believe that evolution's first premise is completely without foundation, anything written by biased scientists seeking to prop up this fraud is useless, since it proves nothing to anyone but those who have been persuaded to believe it.

It appears as if "science" and all things "scientific" can replace human logic and experience. It is not a replacement for spirituality however. I will retain my belief in an Intelligent Designer because that is what I see in nature. I am not one bit swayed by the findings of a bunch of learned people who don't want to believe in a Creator but who want him to be drowned in nothing but unprovable conjecture....which is after all, what you accuse ID proponents of having. I will take my cues from the greatest scientist in existence who knows more about biology, genetics, geology and archeology than all the scientist in the world put together. If you want to write him off, that is your prerogative, but please don't assume that everyone worships science the way you do.

 

[Deeje]

I hate to admit it but Deeje does have a point. Look at the image below. Who can possibly believe that this guy could exist accidentally? He must have been created.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10662424

If you think that this in any way represents the Creator, then no wonder you reject him.

But the way people adore science, this could very well represent the way people see evolution. "Mother Nature" with a beard.

 

[Deeje]

Then you are even further behind in your reading.

Although, Darwin will always be contributor to and pioneer for evolution, biologists don't rely on his works alone, even with Natural Selection.

There seems to be a problem with selective reading in this thread.
Where have I ever said that Darwin was alone?

There have been a number of advancements with Natural Selection, other biologists have amended where he was in error.

And who will amend the amendments of the amenders?
What discovery tomorrow will render today's "evidence" invalid?

And during his times, he know nothing of other evolutionary mechanisms that have been discovered and accepted his death. Below are the list of 5 different mechanisms to evolution:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutation
3. Gene Flow
4. Genetic Drift
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

I am not a biologist, but I do understand the basics of the 1st three.

The first two, I think most people are similar with.

This is unfortunately the truth. Most people have no idea of the mechanics and are therefore persuaded to believe something that sounds convincing and is presented as undeniable truth. But it's only truth for today and tomorrow could be a different story.

How many people these days are ever presented with a truthful opposing argument? I am not talking about YEC because that to me is nonsense. Intelligent Design doesn't need creation to be 6,000 years old. Evidence of intelligent design is everywhere. Denying it or trying to explain it away doesn't make it any less true.

Gene Flow has nothing to do with environment effecting changes. Instead, it relate to migration. Example, populations of two species, join and breed with each other, producing a new and third species.

And that third new species will be.....the within the main taxonomy, no matter how many adaptations are produced. Nothing ventures out of its "kind". There is no evidence of one "kind" becoming a completely different "kind" of creature.

The last two muchanisms relates to allele or gene variant...of which I know little of.

How many people who accept evolution even know as much as you do? Yet they trust that what they are told is true with nothing but the power of suggestion and good graphics to convince them.

My point is that evolution don't rely on Charles Darwin. He didn't know about molecular biology and DNA, but for his time, he was ahead of his time.

I don't recall anyone making that assumption. Nothing built on Darwin's thesis has any bearing on the truth of the original premise. It is as flawed today as it ever was. There is no real evidence for organic evolution. Suggestion, conjecture, predictions or assumptions, made by those who are dedicated to promoting this theory will ever be proven to be 'gospel' truth.....because none of these things has any basis in actual fact. Why do you guys keep arguing as this isn't true?

 

[sayak83]

@Deeje
My postings has nothing to do with changing your mind (which I know is completely fixed and is not likely to change). This is about rebutting your intentionally misleading and false views of science in general and evolution in particular in a public forum meant for open debate between evolution and creationism. A total of 750 posts here have received around 10,000 views - i.e. over 130 views per post. Given the number of likes received (both you, I and many others), quite a lot of people have found these conversations informative and enjoyable. If even a few of my posts have spurred a few people to feel interest in these questions and explore these topics about the nature and history of life in this planet for themselves, then, no matter what they conclude, I would feel that my efforts have been fruitful.

Now for your recent statements

@sayak83 Please don't waste your time posting science books and article in support of organic evolution. Since I believe that evolution's first premise is completely without foundation, anything written by biased scientists seeking to prop up this fraud is useless, since it proves nothing to anyone but those who have been persuaded to believe it.

All methods and established theories and conclusions of science are straightforward applications of Inductive Logic.
Its just categorically false that any aspect of the theory of evolution is a premise. The theory of evolution is the conclusion of an inductive logical argument while the evidence (from fossils, genes, experiments) are the premises justifying the conclusion. (See the link). But I don't expect you to understand this, since you do not actually know much about logic either, and have shown no interest so far to learn.

It appears as if "science" and all things "scientific" can replace human logic and experience. It is not a replacement for spirituality however. I will retain my belief in an Intelligent Designer because that is what I see in nature. I am not one bit swayed by the findings of a bunch of learned people who don't want to believe in a Creator but who want him to be drowned in nothing but unprovable conjecture....which is after all, what you accuse ID proponents of having.

Here is the jist of your "arguments" so far

Somewhere in the Sinai around 1000 BCE:-
Simplicio:- The Bible is nonsense.
Moses:- Why do you say so?
Simplicio:- See all those scratches (picture of Bible tablets) in pieces of stones. Just nonsense!
Moses:- But..but..it all makes sense, see its written in Hebrew. Let me read it to you!
Simplicio:- Nonsense. Ink squiggles don't have voices! You are making them up. A global fraud of the elites (pointing at Moses and Aaron) to make us believe squiggles can be sensible words, even calling them words of God. Bah!
Moses:- Ah! You can't read? Look, my friend Aaron has created a nice school over there that will tell you how these scratches become words.
Simplicio:- Nonsense. I reject your first premise that stone scratches can become words! (More pictures of stone tablets presented). See all my experience of scratches on stones goes against it! I will only believe what my eyes can see. And here they are, just random scratches!
Moses:-. Look but it does. If you only try and learn a bit. And its very useful see. It tells you of these laws and commandments, we will have a mighty fine society based on it one day.
Simplicio:- You and your elitist fantasy. Look around you! We are still roaming in the desert.
Moses:- We would have been out of here long ago is only people would follow the directions for once.

And so they continue roaming aimlessly for a few more decades

...............THE END..............................................

There is a reason why your stance is called scientific illiteracy.

I will take my cues from the greatest scientist in existence who knows more about biology, genetics, geology and archeology than all the scientist in the world put together. If you want to write him off, that is your prerogative, but please don't assume that everyone worships science the way you do.

Being ignorant of biology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of life-and-death. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

Being ignorant of geology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of the earth. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

Being ignorant of archaeology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of the past. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

For us Indians and many Asians, Enlightenment (symbolized as a white swan) emanates from this 1000-aspected world itself (a white lotus of a thousand petals) and is embodied as Knowledge (Goddess Saraswati) expressed in the form of the sciences (the parchment), of the arts (the harp), of self-reflection (the meditation beads) and of ethics (the upraised hand).

Your attempts to figure out what I believe and do not believe, what I worship and do not worship based on complete ignorance is cringe-inducing.

 

[Deeje]

My postings has nothing to do with changing your mind (which I know is completely fixed and is not likely to change).

You mean like yours?

This is about rebutting your intentionally misleading and false views of science in general and evolution in particular in a public forum meant for open debate between evolution and creationism.

I have never presented anything intentionally misleading....all I have presented is the truth as I understand it.
I am supposing that you have done the same. You believe your teachers and I believe mine. Yours rely on their interpretation of science, mine rely on their interpretation of scripture. You cannot prove that your teachers are right....and neither can I if I rely only on science. There is so much more to life than science. How does science explain spirituality, which has been with mankind from his beginnings.

A total of 750 posts here have received around 10,000 views - i.e. over 130 views per post. Given the number of likes received (both you, I and many others), quite a lot of people have found these conversations informative and enjoyable. If even a few of my posts have spurred a few people to feel interest in these questions and explore these topics about the nature and history of life in this planet for themselves, then, no matter what they conclude, I would feel that my efforts have been fruitful.

Which was precisely the reason I started this thread. It's nice to see that people are interested in the conversation here. Most of them read but do not post, so we have no real way of ascertaining which direction the arguments presented here have affected them. I hope they can evaluate both sides of this story.
I believe that the very foundation of the whole theory is flawed....but that is just my opinion...I will leave the readers here to make up their own minds.

Now for your recent statements

All methods and established theories and conclusions of science are straightforward applications of Inductive Logic.
Its just categorically false that any aspect of the theory of evolution is a premise. The theory of evolution is the conclusion of an inductive logical argument while the evidence (from fossils, genes, experiments) are the premises justifying the conclusion. (See the link). But I don't expect you to understand this, since you do not actually know much about logic either, and have shown no interest so far to learn.

The theory of evolution is a theory, regardless of the definition science wants to give it....it is based on the supposition that all life descended from a single called organism that somehow sprang into life in an unexplainable fashion in the dim dark past, and then supposedly transformed itself into all the diversity of life that has ever existed.

Science can prove that adaptation took place in the past and still does when a new environment or a change of food source forces living things to make necessary changes in their habits. But what science can never prove is that all life descended from that primordial soup evolving over millions of years to explain the existence of all life forms on this planet. If the "evidence" was not interpreted by those who promote evolution, no one would ever assume that all life is just a monumental series of fortunate accidents. How many flukes does it take to build a theory?

Here is the jist of your "arguments" so far

Somewhere in the Sinai around 1000 BCE:-
Simplicio:- The Bible is nonsense.
Moses:- Why do you say so?
Simplicio:- See all those scratches (picture of Bible tablets) in pieces of stones. Just nonsense!
Moses:- But..but..it all makes sense, see its written in Hebrew. Let me read it to you!
Simplicio:- Nonsense. Ink squiggles don't have voices! You are making them up. A global fraud of the elites (pointing at Moses and Aaron) to make us believe squiggles can be sensible words, even calling them words of God. Bah!
Moses:- Ah! You can't read? Look, my friend Aaron has created a nice school over there that will tell you how these scratches become words.
Simplicio:- Nonsense. I reject your first premise that stone scratches can become words! (More pictures of stone tablets presented). See all my experience of scratches on stones goes against it! I will only believe what my eyes can see. And here they are, just random scratches!
Moses:-. Look but it does. If you only try and learn a bit. And its very useful see. It tells you of these laws and commandments, we will have a mighty fine society based on it one day.
Simplicio:- You and your elitist fantasy. Look around you! We are still roaming in the desert.
Moses:- We would have been out of here long ago is only people would follow the directions for once.

And so they continue roaming aimlessly for a few more decades

...............THE END..............................................

There is a reason why your stance is called scientific illiteracy.

Really? You seriously think that this is how Moses obtained his information for the writing of Genesis? Talk about cringe-inducing....And with a ....and then you post this....?

And your belief system is somehow superior to mine....because it has a white swan, a thousand petal lotus and a goddess named Saraswati?

Being ignorant of biology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of life-and-death. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

Being ignorant of geology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of the earth. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

Being ignorant of archaeology and not willing to learn or understand it, you merely pretend to worship a God who embodies the knowledge and wisdom of the past. Your claim is empty, false, futile. A sky-flower.

Since you show no understanding of my belief system, how do you know that your claim is not just as empty, false and futile as you think mine is?

Your understanding of biology and geology and archeology have been fed to you by those who accept that an Intelligent Designer is a fairy tale. I believe that evolution is the real fairy story and that you have no more 'scientific' proof for your beliefs than I do.

Your attempts to figure out what I believe and do not believe, what I worship and do not worship based on complete ignorance is cringe-inducing.

I know the feeling.

 

[Olinda]

@Deeje
My postings has nothing to do with changing your mind (which I know is completely fixed and is not likely to change). This is about rebutting your intentionally misleading and false views of
Now for your recent statements





And so they continue roaming aimlessly for a few more decades

...............THE

Your attempts to figure out what I believe and do not believe, what I worship and do not worship based on complete ignorance is cringe-inducing.

This is about rebutting your intentionally misleading and false views of science in general and evolution in particular in a public forum meant for open debate between evolution and creationism.

A general question: can any more knowledgeable posters provide information on research that both supports the Theory of Evolution and provides benefits (medical, agricultural or other)? It might help to address the attempted division of science into 'true' and 'false'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@sayak83 Please don't waste your time posting science books and article in support of organic evolution. Since I believe that evolution's first premise is completely without foundation, anything written by biased scientists seeking to prop up this fraud is useless, since it proves nothing to anyone but those who have been persuaded to believe it.

It appears as if "science" and all things "scientific" can replace human logic and experience. It is not a replacement for spirituality however. I will retain my belief in an Intelligent Designer because that is what I see in nature. I am not one bit swayed by the findings of a bunch of learned people who don't want to believe in a Creator but who want him to be drowned in nothing but unprovable conjecture....which is after all, what you accuse ID proponents of having. I will take my cues from the greatest scientist in existence who knows more about biology, genetics, geology and archeology than all the scientist in the world put together. If you want to write him off, that is your prerogative, but please don't assume that everyone worships science the way you do.

Don't post evidence. That's what you're asking. I can't speak for Sayak, but I will never stop posting evidence (and there is a ton of it) because people are afraid to look at it, or refuse to consider it. I care about discovering as many true things about the world as possible, free from the constraint of wishful thinking and my own personal desires.

I've already pointed out to you several times that there are plenty of Christian people who accept evolution because that's where the evidence points to. Francis Collins is the physician/geneticist and the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He's also an evangelical Christian. He accepts evolution, and here's what he has to say about it:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."

You can read the full interview here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx




So for you to say that evolution is some theory concocted and perpetuated by people who "don't want to believe in a creator" isn't firmly based in reality. Darwin was not an atheist at the time he proposed the theory and as I pointed out to you, many others who had a role to play in developing the theory of evolution throughout our history were religious-minded people as well. And there are millions of other Christians alive today that have no problem reconciling their belief in god with their acceptance of evolution.


We don't worship science. We simply recognize it as the best tool we have available to use in helping us understand what is going on in the world around us. Human curiosity and the drive to want to know more leads to ingenuity and discovery and deeper understanding of the workings of the universe. Stopping at "god did it" doesn't get us to that. That's just substituting a mystery with an even greater mystery.

Investigation beyond the superficial level; repetitive, controlled and rigorous testing; observation; self-correction; precise measurement; and integration of previously discovered knowledge are the tools that lead to fuller, richer, and deeper explanations and understanding of the mechanisms at work in our world. These are the hallmarks of the scientific method. Do you really thing we should give all that up and instead just rely on our own incredulity? I mean, I don't really understand how electricity works and it looks like magic to me. I see it shooting around the sky during thunderstorms without apparent rhyme or reason. So should I forego trying to investigate further how it might work, and just decide that some invisible deity must be controlling it? How do I get any closer to understanding anything that way?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There seems to be a problem with selective reading in this thread.
Where have I ever said that Darwin was alone?



And who will amend the amendments of the amenders?
What discovery tomorrow will render today's "evidence" invalid?



This is unfortunately the truth. Most people have no idea of the mechanics and are therefore persuaded to believe something that sounds convincing and is presented as undeniable truth. But it's only truth for today and tomorrow could be a different story.

How many people these days are ever presented with a truthful opposing argument? I am not talking about YEC because that to me is nonsense. Intelligent Design doesn't need creation to be 6,000 years old. Evidence of intelligent design is everywhere. Denying it or trying to explain it away doesn't make it any less true.



And that third new species will be.....the within the main taxonomy, no matter how many adaptations are produced. Nothing ventures out of its "kind". There is no evidence of one "kind" becoming a completely different "kind" of creature.



How many people who accept evolution even know as much as you do? Yet they trust that what they are told is true with nothing but the power of suggestion and good graphics to convince them.



I don't recall anyone making that assumption. Nothing built on Darwin's thesis has any bearing on the truth of the original premise. It is as flawed today as it ever was. There is no real evidence for organic evolution. Suggestion, conjecture, predictions or assumptions, made by those who are dedicated to promoting this theory will ever be proven to be 'gospel' truth.....because none of these things has any basis in actual fact. Why do you guys keep arguing as this isn't true?

Please define "kind" and provide some examples of how we can determine which species are the same "kind." And keep in mind that "kind" is not a scientific term.

Please also define "adaptation" and "organic evolution" as you are using them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no real examination of the "evidence" when interpretation only follows a predictable party line. Any scientist who dares to step over that line has years of ridicule and humiliation to endure before any acknowledgment is made.

Barry Marshall is a classic example of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall

Darwin stepped over that line. He had a very difficult time presenting his ideas to a mostly religious world. His ideas were finally accepted when there was enough convincing evidence. Although creationists still won’t accept his evidence. I guess it works both ways.

It’s true that new ideas are initially tough to get through to people. When you can build up your base of evidence and demonstrate your ideas to people, that’s when they start to pay attention and start examining your evidence. A few people on the thread have talked about how scientists are engaged in proving each other wrong, which is evident from the published literature. In order to critique someone’s hypotheses, you have to first examine their evidence. This is a big part of how science operates and progresses. Apparently Barry Marshall realizes that as well.


“Some of your colleagues thought the way you presented it was a little crass, didn't they?

Barry Marshall: Well, I was fairly confident at that stage, and I was sticking my neck out.

I knew there'd be a lot of Americans there. And we were then challenging for the America's Cup. And so, in fact, I got up and I really threw down the gauntlet. My first slide was a photo of Perth in Western Australia, lovely river and sea, and a yacht. And I said, "This is Perth, Western Australia, and this is the yacht that's going to win the America's Cup in 19..." I think it was '86 or '87. And everybody, "Ahh!" You know, paper balls were being thrown at me. And then I went on to present the new bacteria. I wasn't totally alone though, because I had connected up with the head bacteriologist in England who was interested in that species or that type of bacteria. I'd visited with him for a couple of days before the conference and he had kind of given me a little more confidence than usual, and backed me up on it. As he introduced me, he said, "Well, this is Barry Marshall. He's got this wonderful, interesting new bacteria." So although people were skeptical, and they all went home with the aim of trying to prove me wrong, that's how science moves forward. Someone has a hypothesis and you say, "Okay, if I can prove it wrong, I can publish a paper saying he's wrong." Gradually, over the next few years, one by one, these people trying to prove me wrong fell by the wayside and actually converted over to my side, and became experts in their own right, in helicobacter.

Is it frustrating when you're at that point in your research and things are not going your way and people are weighing in with those kinds of dismissive remarks?

Barry Marshall: I'm a lot more mature now, and I know that this is how science works. You've got to be pretty thick-skinned and ready to take the blows. In those days, it used to really cut me to the quick when people -- even my boss -- would get up and criticize my work this way. I was a... "brash young man" is a term that came out of the Reader's Digest article many years ago. "Zealot" was another of the names that I was given. I read the history of the zealots, and you know, I was exactly like that.

It was a campaign, everyone was against me. But I knew I was right, because I actually had done a couple of years' work at that point. I had a few backers. And when I was criticized by gastroenterologists, I knew that they were mostly making their living doing endoscopies on ulcer patients. So I'm going to show you guys. A few years from now you'll be saying, "Hey! Where did all those endoscopies go to?" And it will be because I was treating ulcers with antibiotics.



Now his views on ulcers are accepted science and have led to breakthroughs in stomach cancer research. All because he studied his butt off to provide the necessary evidence to convince his colleagues that he was onto something.

 

[Deeje]

Don't post evidence. That's what you're asking. I can't speak for Sayak, but I will never stop posting evidence (and there is a ton of it) because people are afraid to look at it, or refuse to consider it. I care about discovering as many true things about the world as possible, free from the constraint of wishful thinking and my own personal desires.

What is this absolute refusal for so many to acknowledge one simple truth.....that there is no real evidence and never has been for organic evolution ever to have taken place? (That all life evolved from a single celled organism that somehow magically sprang into life millions of years ago and transformed itself into all the life forms that have ever existed.) That is the real fairy tale.

What is accepted as "evidence" is science's educated guess of what they say the evidence is "suggesting". You can't seem to see that there is no solid foundation supporting the beliefs that science wants to present as fact. There is nothing linking the fossils found, except some wishful thinking. There is no point in presenting science's interpretation of the fossil record because they have already accepted the premise that evolution is the only explanation there is for the diversity of life, and all their evidence is forced to fit that premise.

I've already pointed out to you several times that there are plenty of Christian people who accept evolution because that's where the evidence points to. Francis Collins is the physician/geneticist and the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. He's also an evangelical Christian.

He can call himself whatever he likes. I'll have to pull the "no true Scotsman" rule here. If Jesus accepted creation, then his follower must accept it too. You can't have a foot in both camps because they are totally incompatible. You have to choose one or the other.

He accepts evolution, and here's what he has to say about it:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before.

It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

LOL...."overwhelming" is actually a gross exaggeration. The "evidence" is actually missing....but that doesn't prevent science from using imagination to fill in the gaps. No true Christian could believe that God created evolution. That is absurd. The thing that makes God a Creator is his creativity after all. He is a true artisan who crafted the life forms he brought into existence....and he has a place for all of them, just as he had a reason for creating every star.

I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.

And there you have the reason for his defection.....it makes Christians look silly to the scientific world.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what this fellow says.

But I have no difficulty putting that together with what I believe as a Christian because I believe that God had a plan to create creatures with whom he could have fellowship, in whom he could inspire [the] moral law, in whom he could infuse the soul, and who he would give free will as a gift for us to make decisions about our own behavior, a gift which we oftentimes utilize to do the wrong thing.

I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God.

[He] had the plan all along of how that would turn out. There was no ambiguity about that."

You can read the full interview here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...-threatened-by-our-scientific-adventures.aspx

Here is the classic example of someone who has fallen for the evidence without understanding that suggestions are not facts. He attributes creation to a process that God never once mentioned. To make such an assumption is more about saving face than standing up for the truth.

So for you to say that evolution is some theory concocted and perpetuated by people who "don't want to believe in a creator" isn't firmly based in reality. Darwin was not an atheist at the time he proposed the theory and as I pointed out to you, many others who had a role to play in developing the theory of evolution throughout our history were religious-minded people as well. And there are millions of other Christians alive today that have no problem reconciling their belief in god with their acceptance of evolution.

I am sorry but you cannot fuse the two.....they simply do not blend....no matter how many people who purport to be 'Christians' accept it. Organic evolution is based on adaptation because that is the only thing that Darwin and others saw. Getting carried away with the idea that you can stretch adaptation to ridiculous limits is not proven by the evidence.....it is inferred, suggested, and postulated but there is no real proof that any species is related to another millions of years apart.
You can't play "join the dots" if the dots are missing.

We don't worship science. We simply recognize it as the best tool we have available to use in helping us understand what is going on in the world around us. Human curiosity and the drive to want to know more leads to ingenuity and discovery and deeper understanding of the workings of the universe. Stopping at "god did it" doesn't get us to that. That's just substituting a mystery with an even greater mystery.

I have no mysteries. I have belief in a great and powerful entity whose sole aim was to create a universe without any limits on what he would do with it. I see planet earth as a starting point in his purpose for bringing such a vast expanse into existence. He is not one to reveal everything all at once, but over time he unfolds a bit more of his plan.

Investigation beyond the superficial level; repetitive, controlled and rigorous testing; observation; self-correction; precise measurement; and integration of previously discovered knowledge are the tools that lead to fuller, richer, and deeper explanations and understanding of the mechanisms at work in our world. These are the hallmarks of the scientific method. Do you really thing we should give all that up and instead just rely on our own incredulity?

Are you not displaying incredulity yourself? Discovering wonderful aspects of the natural world and gaining a fuller understanding of their mechanisms is fine....but science wants to take that into the realms of fantasy by suggesting all manner of things they cannot prove.....they do this whilst pointing that same finger at us. The scientific method is to ascertain facts, but all they provide is speculation.

I mean, I don't really understand how electricity works and it looks like magic to me. I see it shooting around the sky during thunderstorms without apparent rhyme or reason. So should I forego trying to investigate further how it might work, or should I just decide that some invisible deity must be controlling it?

When I see the power of lightning in a thunder storm, I am in awe of the power that created that energy. Man has harnessed it but he cannot take credit for its creation. Science is the study of what God created. Without creation, there would be nothing to study.

 

[ArtieE]

If you think that this in any way represents the Creator, then no wonder you reject him.

Do you have an image that better "represents the Creator"?

 

[ArtieE]

What is this absolute refusal for so many to acknowledge one simple truth.....that there is no real evidence and never has been for organic evolution ever to have taken place? (That all life evolved from a single celled organism that somehow magically sprang into life millions of years ago and transformed itself into all the life forms that have ever existed.) That is the real fairy tale.

Once upon a time there was a god that just magically existed. How is that better?

 

[Deeje]

Do you have an image that better "represents the Creator"?

There is no way to make an image of something that is not tangible. Can you give me an image of the wind...or only an image of what the wind did to change something in the environment? I have given many images of the Creator's works, but no image of him can be accurate. No one has ever seen him and in his word, he says that humans could not survive the experience. He is nothing that humans can even comprehend, but I love what he has made......as long as you can separate what he has done, compared to what humans have done to mess up his handiwork. Science has provided the means for man to destroy this earth and all the life it supports. But you knew that....right?

A mental image of the Creator (which is all we can have realistically) is based on what he reveals about himself in his inspired word. He portrays himself as a loving father figure, a sovereign ruler, a powerful monarch....someone to be respected. But rather than being a cruel despot, he describes his dominant qualities as justice, wisdom, power and love....all in perfect balance. His human creation are the only ones in existence who can mirror those qualities in a conscious way, rather than being merely "programmed" to act on pure survival instincts. But free will selfishly exercised, can, and has, taken human behavior in the wrong direction.

Once upon a time there was a god that just magically existed. How is that better?

Do you see what you have done here just by the inference used in your statement? Your choice of words is designed to be specifically derogatory. Turning the Creator into a mythical character, does not make him into that character, no matter how well science tries to humiliate him.

Science has created this attitude by feeding people false information about their origins. Killing God off in the minds of men, does not make him go away, nor does it alter his plans for the future. I assure you, you will believe in him one day...but not in the way you that will make you glad you did.

You are aware of the saying about "biting the hand that feeds you"? It works the same way with the one who caused your existence. You don't want to be found among those who oppose him and ridicule those who are devoted to him.

 

[ArtieE]

No one has ever seen him and in his word, he says that humans could not survive the experience.

Would that be the same "word" where God shows Moses his backparts http://biblehub.com/exodus/33-23.htm and Jacob wrestles with God face to face? http://biblehub.com/genesis/32-30.htm Surely Jacob could have produced an image of God? Maybe God would look like the image I showed you...

 

[ArtieE]

Do you see what you have done here just by the inference used in your statement? Your choice of words is designed to be specifically derogatory.

Well, I said and I quote: "Once upon a time there was a god that just magically existed. How is that better?". What if I said: "In the beginning there was a god that just magically existed." Now, if the Bible authors had started off with a rational explanation why their God should exist in the first place instead of just starting with "In the beginning God created" at least I could have taken them more seriously.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no way to make an image of something that is not tangible. Can you give me an image of the wind...or only an image of what the wind did to change something in the environment? I have given many images of the Creator's works, but no image of him can be accurate. No one has ever seen him and in his word, he says that humans could not survive the experience. He is nothing that humans can even comprehend, but I love what he has made......as long as you can separate what he has done, compared to what humans have done to mess up his handiwork. Science has provided the means for man to destroy this earth and all the life it supports. But you knew that....right?

A mental image of the Creator (which is all we can have realistically) is based on what he reveals about himself in his inspired word. He portrays himself as a loving father figure, a sovereign ruler, a powerful monarch....someone to be respected. But rather than being a cruel despot, he describes his dominant qualities as justice, wisdom, power and love....all in perfect balance. His human creation are the only ones in existence who can mirror those qualities in a conscious way, rather than being merely "programmed" to act on pure survival instincts. But free will selfishly exercised, can, and has, taken human behavior in the wrong direction.



Do you see what you have done here just by the inference used in your statement? Your choice of words is designed to be specifically derogatory. Turning the Creator into a mythical character, does not make him into that character, no matter how well science tries to humiliate him.

Science has created this attitude by feeding people false information about their origins. Killing God off in the minds of men, does not make him go away, nor does it alter his plans for the future. I assure you, you will believe in him one day...but not in the way you that will make you glad you did.

You are aware of the saying about "biting the hand that feeds you"? It works the same way with the one who caused your existence. You don't want to be found among those who oppose him and ridicule those who are devoted to him.

Please keep your empty threats to yourself. Nobody is threatening eternal torture to you for not accepting science.

Start providing some evidence for the existence of this creator you speak of instead. I don't believe things I don't have any good reason to believe. .

 

[Deeje]

Well, I said and I quote: "Once upon a time there was a god that just magically existed. How is that better?". What if I said: "In the beginning there was a god that just magically existed." Now, if the Bible authors had started off with a rational explanation why their God should exist in the first place instead of just starting with "In the beginning God created" at least I could have taken them more seriously.

I love the use of the word "magically" because it conveys the idea of something outside of man's normal abilities. I use it to describe science's explanation of the sudden and mysterious appearance of life on this planet. It was also "magical" in the same sense that you used it. Wouldn't you say though, that it just means something not yet understood?

"Miracles" fall into this mythical category in the minds of many atheists, but the Bible's depiction of them was simply gaining the mastery over natural laws in a temporary way. Power is not magic. Power, when used to override the natural experience of man's natural abilities, is just something unbelievers cannot comprehend. But you cannot categorically say that the existence of such a power is an impossibility....it is just something not yet understood.

If the human race had just continued to use their free will in obedience to their rightful sovereign, there would have been no need to say anything at all about his existence where he came from.

 

[Shad]

I love the use of the word "magically" because it conveys the idea of something outside of man's normal abilities. I use it to describe science's explanation of the sudden and mysterious appearance of life on this planet. It was also "magical" in the same sense that you used it. Wouldn't you say though, that it just means something not yet understood?

"Miracles" fall into this mythical category in the minds of many atheists, but the Bible's depiction of them was simply gaining the mastery over natural laws in a temporary way. Power is not magic. Power, when used to override the natural experience of man's natural abilities, is just something unbelievers cannot comprehend. But you cannot categorically say that the existence of such a power is an impossibility....it is just something not yet understood.

If the human race had just continued to use their free will in obedience to their rightful sovereign, there would have been no need to say anything at all about his existence where he came from.

So magic you accept rather than magic you reject. Hilarious. Let's flip this around. Science is many ways is seen as magic to the uneducated and ignorant.... Those that understand science do not see it as magic at all. Those that reject science do not understand it nor comprehend it.

Yawn.