Questions for creationists who ‘understand evolution’?

[Thief]

Ah, more hiding.
You are good at that.

Perhaps if you were to spend less time preaching and threatening and more time actually explaining...

I am not going to be holding my breath...

Look who's hiding!.....
Black hood...and empty retorts!

 

[McBell]

Look who's hiding!.....
Black hood...and empty retorts!

*yaqwn*

told ya I wasn't gonna hold my breath.

 

[Thief]

So...back to topic....
Evolution is an ever increasing quality of life.

God set it into motion.
His plan.

He did it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So...back to topic....
Evolution is an ever increasing quality of life.

Wrong.

 

[FDRC2014]

You do understand that believing is a matter of choice?...not science.

I don't think I have a choice in believing. I can't believe. Perhaps it's i'm not that gullible, or i require evidence for an argument for something. My brain just doesn't comprehend the idea of faith or religion as a literal belief. Religion has just evolved with our community.

Faith needs no proving.

By definition is is based upon no evidence (blind faith). Saying this just permits anyone to do anything based on 'faith'. Just like a suicide bomber, or the IRA; their faith is what permits them to do this.
In this case it has NO place being taught in a school (i strongly disagree with faith schools, but that is another topic), as you can't teach something that has no proving. A 'just believe this because i'm telling you' thing. If you permit this then i can teach a child it is right to kill, because i'm telling it. Faith needs no proving, but this is it's flaw.

If you lack a personal need for God...fine.

Live and let live. I agree. But as I said, if religion preaches, or teaches, then it should be subject to criticism.

Hence your style of discussion.

One based on logic, rather than a 'strong inner conviction'.

That will change in your last hour.

I suppose this is impossible to say, again a religious person just blabbering on something that really is based upon no evidence. You can't say this. Besides, if you find yourself in mortal peril, your body is evolved to try to take any means necessary to save it's self, if this involves believing in god (or blind praying) because it 'might' work, then it's worth a chance.

The choice is actually quite simple.
If you say...spirit first...then you might well continue....after your last breath.
If you say chemistry first....then chemistry begets spirit....
and when your chemistry fails so do you.

I don't want to continue after my last breath. Life is now.
I will repeat the above, in my view.

If you say science first... then you live understanding the world you live in, logically.
You can say sprit first, based upon no evidence, misunderstanding the world around you. Incase when when you do die, you find yourself in heaven.

If you statement is true, then why on earth would i ever want to go to heaven, it must be just full of loads of confused, illogical people. :beach:

 

[Thief]

I don't think I have a choice in believing. I can't believe. Perhaps it's i'm not that gullible, or i require evidence for an argument for something. My brain just doesn't comprehend the idea of faith or religion as a literal belief. Religion has just evolved with our community.


By definition is is based upon no evidence (blind faith). Saying this just permits anyone to do anything based on 'faith'. Just like a suicide bomber, or the IRA; their faith is what permits them to do this.
In this case it has NO place being taught in a school (i strongly disagree with faith schools, but that is another topic), as you can't teach something that has no proving. A 'just believe this because i'm telling you' thing. If you permit this then i can teach a child it is right to kill, because i'm telling it. Faith needs no proving, but this is it's flaw.


Live and let live. I agree. But as I said, if religion preaches, or teaches, then it should be subject to criticism.


One based on logic, rather than a 'strong inner conviction'.


I suppose this is impossible to say, again a religious person just blabbering on something that really is based upon no evidence. You can't say this. Besides, if you find yourself in mortal peril, your body is evolved to try to take any means necessary to save it's self, if this involves believing in god (or blind praying) because it 'might' work, then it's worth a chance.



I don't want to continue after my last breath. Life is now.
I will repeat the above, in my view.

If you say science first... then you live understanding the world you live in, logically.
You can say sprit first, based upon no evidence, misunderstanding the world around you. Incase when when you do die, you find yourself in heaven.

If you statement is true, then why on earth would i ever want to go to heaven, it must be just full of loads of confused, illogical people. :beach:

As expected you turn about...needlessly.

You first assume of me a dogmatic believing and then lump my post is if I follow congregation.

Note my banner.

There are only two possibilities.
You will stand up from your body as your last breath fails.....or not.

I don't believe in a dead universe....therefore...spirit first.
Therefore again....Someone will be waiting to see what stands up from the dust.

If not...eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.
No sunlight, moonlight, starlight,....philosophical light.
Really is dark down there.

If you like, you could start a thread....life in the spirit.

 

[FDRC2014]

As expected you turn about...needlessly.

You first assume of me a dogmatic believing and then lump my post is if I follow congregation.

Note my banner.

There are only two possibilities.
You will stand up from your body as your last breath fails.....or not.

I don't believe in a dead universe....therefore...spirit first.
Therefore again....Someone will be waiting to see what stands up from the dust.

If not...eternal darkness is physically real.
No form of light follows anyone into the grave.
No sunlight, moonlight, starlight,....philosophical light.
Really is dark down there.

If you like, you could start a thread....life in the spirit.

I'm confused. What has light, or a dead universe have to do with anything.
And all beliefs boil down what you believe.

 

[Thief]

I'm confused. What has light, or a dead universe have to do with anything.
And all beliefs boil down what you believe.

Haven't made a choice yet?

If you say chemistry begets spirit then you are the sum of your chemistry.
All that you are fails when your chemistry fails.

The spirit in you...the part of you reading this....will dissipate as if you were never born.
Body goes in the box.
Dust you are dust you will be.

If you say spirit first....
Then some consideration is to be made toward Something greater than yourself.

 

[tumbleweed41]

If you say chemistry begets spirit ...

No one said that.
In fact, biological evolution has nothing to do with the belief in supernatural spirit.

 

[Thief]

No one said that.
In fact, biological evolution has nothing to do with the belief in supernatural spirit.

Haven't really made that choice..... have you?

And yes....your biology has everything to do with your spirit.

Your body is how a unique spirit is formed.
Your linear existence insures it.
There is no mystery to life.
You are here to learn all you can....then back to God you go.

 

[McBell]

Haven't really made that choice..... have you?

And yes....your biology has everything to do with your spirit.

Your body is how a unique spirit is formed.
Your linear existence insures it.
There is no mystery to life.
You are here to learn all you can....then back to God you go.

It is sad that you have to make strawmen in order to preach.

Seems to me you are slipping...

 

[tumbleweed41]

your biology has everything to do with your spirit.

Your body is how a unique spirit is formed.

Really. Do you have the biological research to back this claim up?

Or are you trying to draw us off the subject of how little about biological evolution you actually know?

 

[rusra02]

I can’t see how anyone who properly understands evolution by means of natural selection, can have need for a creationist view. Many creationists say that they understand evolution, but I am not sure to what degree. Here are some questions that if you have a basic knowledge of evolution, you should be able to answer.
Only answer if you are a creationist, and don't just research the answer and paste something you don't understand – just say you don’t know.
Also don't cheat and look at others answers.
I know the answers (or scientific answers), but am interested in what other people know/think.


Explain the basic idea of evolution by natural selection.

Explain where the advantageous trait came from.

Using the above explain the evolution of the giraffe neck.

Explain how speciation occurs, by natural selection in a disruptive environment.

What does the word 'Theory' mean, in a scientific context

Explain how evolution can give rise to infertile worker bees.

Explain why evolution by natural selection is NOT survival of the fittest.

Explain what biological fitness is.

Give an example of evolution that happens on a short time scale (i.e. that can be observed).

Your questions remind me of the question "How long has it been since you stopped beating your wife?"
Science has confirmed that life appeared suddenly, that different animals and plants appeared fully formed, and have not morphed into some other creature. Neither the fossil record nor extensive experimentation support the idea of 'natural selection' nor of mutations being beneficial as the mechanism for supposed 'speciation'.
Mutations have been described as being like sticking a screwdriver into a [computer] or other complex machine. How often will such 'accidents' improve the performance of such a complex entity. In short, the ToE relies on scientific speculation and imagination, sleight of hand, propaganda, and outright dishonesty to convince rather than scientific evidence.

 

[McBell]

Science has confirmed that life appeared suddenly, that different animals and plants appeared fully formed, and have not morphed into some other creature.

Source please.

Neither the fossil record nor extensive experimentation support the idea of 'natural selection' nor of mutations being beneficial as the mechanism for supposed 'speciation'.

Source Please

Mutations have been described as being like sticking a screwdriver into a [computer] or other complex machine. How often will such 'accidents' improve the performance of such a complex entity. In short, the ToE relies on scientific speculation and imagination, sleight of hand, propaganda, and outright dishonesty to convince rather than scientific evidence.

Source Please.

Even if all this is true, Evolution still has far more evidence than creation.

 

[Thief]

Really. Do you have the biological research to back this claim up?

Or are you trying to draw us off the subject of how little about biological evolution you actually know?

And you think a biology study is needed to support my previous post?
How shallow.

Go look in the mirror.

And your existence in this life does what?

Does it not fill your mind with experience?...knowledge?

Then when we die...we go back to God.

Now that isn't hard to see...now is it?

Or maybe you're just hoping for something less?

 

[McBell]

Or maybe you're just hoping for something less?

I am still hoping that you will get a new song and dance.

But I am not holding my breath...

 

[Thief]

I am still hoping that you will get a new song and dance.

But I am not holding my breath...

And keeping waiting for more than empty retort.

 

[McBell]

And keeping waiting for more than empty retort.

I base the quality of my retorts on the quality of your dogmatic retorts.
Now I understand that your state of denial will not let you see the truth of my statement, but then, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Thief]

I base the quality of my retorts on the quality of your dogmatic retorts.
Now I understand that your state of denial will not let you see the truth of my statement, but then, that is your problem, not mine.

You did not state a truth...only empty denial.

Your problem.

 

[McBell]

You did not state a truth...only empty denial.

Your problem.

Really?
As if you were in any position to tell the difference between truth and your dogma...