The Big Bang and Evolution

[Evie]

B

G

God explains Himself. When Moses asks who shall I say sent me God says 'tell them I AM sent me.'

Before all else, God is.

 

[Altfish]

Do you ever explain how you know Jesus feeding the multitude is a fable?

It's in in an old book, it has never been verified or repeated.
I treat The Bible in the same way that I treat Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes books, etc. - some great stories but not based on fact.

 

[ratiocinator]

Unless you can explain how god created itself out of nothing, you have an exactly equivalent problem. The inability of current science to explain something does not lend credence to evidence-free storytelling.

God explains Himself. When Moses asks who shall I say sent me God says 'tell them I AM sent me.'

Ah - an example of the evidence-free storytelling of which I spoke...

 

[Evie]

It's in in an old book, it has never been verified or repeated.
I treat The Bible in the same way that I treat Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes books, etc. - some great stories but not based on fact.

Amazing then, that there are more Christians in the world than any other religion. Hard to imagine this being so if the Bible was a book of fables

 

[Altfish]

Science is no closer to explaining the origin of life that it was in Darwin's time. Even without reading his book I guarantee Krauss did not offer any scientific evidence for his guess.

The Bible explains spiritual truth, not scientific truths, and they are just as important as scientific truths, especially if they are true.

Totally untrue.
We are a lot nearer understanding the origins of life, despite you asserting we are not. For one thing, Darwin had never heard of the primordial soup.

But again, you are revelling in what science is unsure of; is your religion so insecure that you have to denigrate modern discoveries? What a shame.

"Spiritual truth" isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[Evie]

A

Totally untrue.
We are a lot nearer understanding the origins of life, despite you asserting we are not. For one thing, Darwin had never heard of the primordial soup.

But again, you are revelling in what science is unsure of; is your religion so insecure that you have to denigrate modern discoveries? What a shame.

"Spiritual truth" isn't that an oxymoron?

And just how did the alleged primordial soup ( if it ever actually existed) come into existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Amazing then, that there are more Christians in the world than any other religion. Hard to imagine this being so if the Bible was a book of fables

Not really, no. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong. Humans do religion (and all sorts of other superstition too) is all.

It's not even as if all Christians agree about god anyway - even the ones that claim the bible as the ultimate authority can't actually agree with each other.

 

[Evie]

Not really, no. Whichever god(s) you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong. Humans do religion (and all sorts of other superstition too) is all.

It's not even as if all Christians agree about god anyway - even the ones that claim the bible as the ultimate authority can't actually agree with each other.

There may be various interpretations of scripture but all agree on there being a Creator. God.

 

[Thumper]

There may be various interpretations of scripture but all agree on there being a Creator. God.

The Bagavad Gita says that it doesn't matter which God you pray to, Shiva answers all prayers. Are you saying all Hindus are wrong? Any evidence beyond your personal belief?

 

[Thumper]

Amazing then, that there are more Christians in the world than any other religion. Hard to imagine this being so if the Bible was a book of fables

Careful about appeal to popularity, Islam is currently the fastest growing religion.

 

[Evie]

jhhyhj

I do not accept it blindly, I accept it through study and believing it is all from God. There are still things in it I don't understand, but I account that to my lack of understanding.



That example is irrelevant to Christianity. The Bible does not say what Galileo said. The church was wrong, not the Bible.



What qualified you to be the final authority on what is petty?



Science will not lead anyone to the truth about Christianity or about God. You are judging me out of your ignorance. As you are not the final authority on what is petty, you are less of an authority on anyone's spiritual condition.

The Bagavad Gita says that it doesn't matter which God you pray to, Shiva answers all prayers. Are you saying all Hindus are wrong? Any evidence beyond your personal belief?

The Bagavad Gita says that it doesn't matter which God you pray to, Shiva answers all prayers. Are you saying all Hindus are wrong? Any evidence beyond your personal belief?

The Bagavad Gita says that it doesn't matter which God you pray to, Shiva answers all prayers. Are you saying all Hindus are wrong? Any evidence beyond your personal belief?

I did not say any such thing about Hindus. I believe every religion exists because God allowed them all to exist. And there must be a very good reason for Him doing so. Our limited minds are incapable of comprehending the mind of God.

 

[omega2xx]

I didn't call the laws of genetics nonsense. And you didn't answer my question. Since the vast majority of scientists who study genetics and evolution disagree with you - are they idiots who don't understand their subjects or is it an international conspiracy?

When all of the scientist agree, get back to me. Evidently you do not know that basic law of genetics---Genes determine the characteristics the offspring will have. Characteristics in the offspring can only come from the genes in the gene pool of it s parents.

Is that true of false? If you say "false", explain where the characteristics come from

 

[omega2xx]

Unless you can explain how god created itself out of nothing, you have an exactly equivalent problem.

Not exactly the same. Something needs a source. The source for somehing can't be nothing

The inability of current science to explain something does not lend credence to evidence-free storytelling.

Science and you have no evidence it is story telling.

 

[omega2xx]

It's in in an old book, it has never been verified or repeated.
I treat The Bible in the same way that I treat Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes books, etc. - some great stories but not based on fact.

An old book is irrelevant. It is verified by 4 honest men who considered bearing false witness a sin. Where is you evidence that the Bible is in the same category as the books you mentioned. Keep in mind that opinions are not evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Totally untrue.
We are a lot nearer understanding the origins of life, despite you asserting we are not. <<

No you are not. Tell me what has been discovered that brings you closer. Actually DNA is more evidence your unscientific guess are wrong. That is real science.

For one thing, Darwin had never heard of the primordial soup.

Irrelevant. That was a theory of the origin of life for many years.

But again, you are revelling in what science is unsure of; is your religion so insecure that you have to denigrate modern discoveries? What a shame.

The real shame is saying somehing is true but not producing the evidenced to support it. That denigrates its self, I don't have to.

"Spiritual truth" isn't that an oxymoron?

Only if you can prove there is nothing spiritual in the world.

 

[ratiocinator]

When all of the scientist agree, get back to me.

You are claiming that the vast majority of scientists who study generics either don't know or understand the "laws of genetics" or they are lying about them.

Which do you think it is?

 

[ratiocinator]

Something needs a source. The source for somehing can't be nothing

So is your god not "something"? If it is, then, according to you, it needs a source...

 

[ratiocinator]

The inability of current science to explain something does not lend credence to evidence-free storytelling.

Science and you have no evidence it is story telling.

That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it may well be a gradual process. But Darwin's book titled the ORIGIN of the Species is making an incorrect claim. in order for any process of evolution to begin, his theory had to appropriate (take) 'something' already in existence. As such, that 'something' possesses a PRIOR claim to the actual ORIGIN of the species. Darwin appropriated then built his theory upon that 'something'.

Darwin was quite guy, wasn't he?

Although I think it's a bit of an overstatement myself, philosopher Daniel Dennett called Darwin's idea the best idea man had ever had:

"If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law." - Daniel Dennett

Dawkins added, "We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know." and "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

I'd say that ideas like justice and rational skepticism were greater ideas, but we're up in the stratosphere of man's greatest intellectual achievements however we rank them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

His use of the word ORIGIN is incorrect in that he in no way establishes the ORIGIN.

I understood Darwin just fine. And his title is just fine unless you insist that it refers to the origin of the first species rather than the origin of the tree of life given the first life. He obviously meant the latter, since he offered no explanation for the origin of the first life, but did explain the diversity of life we see today.

Why would any of this matter? Is this another attempt to impugn Darwin's intellectual integrity?

We also hear of his alleged racism, his deathbed conversion to Christianity, and a link to social Darwinism including eugenics.