The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Autodidact]

Causality cannot be determined in string theory at the sub atomic levels. That would support the position that a God is holding all things together at the sub atomic level.

Start a thread.

 

[Danmac]

The question is, does the evidence support the hypothesis that God created all species via evolution? Do you have any thoughts about that?

Painted wolf thinks so. Why don't you ask her. Shes the biologist.

 

[Danmac]

Start a thread.

Get a life.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Danmac, what we're trying to determine here is whether you are maintaing the intellectual level of a scientific ignoramus, or are willing to look at the evidence and at least try and shape your belief around that. So, no, we're not asking Painted Wolf, who has made her beliefs known. We're asking you.

Get a life.

She asked you civilly to start a new thread due to the fact that your point on subatomic physics is wholly irrelevant to evolution, and you told him to get a life? Seems a bit 'un-Christian' to me.

 

[Danmac]

Danmac, what we're trying to determine here is whether you are maintaing the intellectual level of a scientific ignoramus, or are willing to look at the evidence and at least try and shape your belief around that. So, no, we're not asking Painted Wolf, who has made her beliefs known. We're asking you.

I look at the same evidence as you do, and form a different conclusion. To me that would make you the ignoramus.

He asked you civilly to start a new thread due to the fact that your point on subatomic physics is wholly irrelevant to evolution, and you told him to get a life? Seems a bit 'un-Christian' to me.

Her speech is rude and obnoxious. Her...... civil... Ha

 

[Autodidact]

Painted wolf thinks so. Why don't you ask her. Shes the biologist.

She does, and she's right.

 

[Autodidact]

I look at the same evidence as you do, and form a different conclusion. To me that would make you the ignoramus.

No, that just makes you wrong.

And no, you have never looked at the evidence, so you have no idea.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I look at the same evidence as you do, and form a different conclusion. To me that would make you the ignoramus.

I would be interested to see how you work protein functional redundancy, dna functional redundancy, transposons, redundant pseudogenes, endogenous retroviruses, anatomical parahomology, molecular parahomology, anatomical convergence, molecular convergence, anatomical suboptimal function, molecular suboptimal function, nested hierarchies, convergence of independent phylogenies, vestigial structures, the past and present biogeography of several species and a ***load of transitional forms into your Creationist dogma.

Assuming that is, you even know what they are.

I finish with a quote from the poet Alexander Pope:

"A little Learning is a dang'rous Thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain"

Danmac, you've been taking very shallow draughts. You know next to nothing of biology, evolution, abiogenesis, and science in general; and it is this which is leading your mind to the conclusion that 'God-dunnit'.

"And drinking largely sobers us again."

Creationism is a drug, the easy way out, the short-term high that blinds you to the elegant beauty of evolution. Everyone here is more than happy to explain Danmac, if you are willing to listen and get sober.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Causality cannot be determined in string theory at the sub atomic levels. That would support the position that a God is holding all things together at the sub atomic level.

No. You are committing the fallacy of an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Just because you can discount one cause for a phenomenon, it does not mean that another cause is automatically correct. It is possible (and in this particular instance) that you have not considered all the other possibilities for the phenomenon.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I look at the same evidence as you do, and form a different conclusion. To me that would make you the ignoramus.

Ah - you're lying again, Danmac. You aren't looking at the evidence. You are ignoring it. You are cherrypicking it. You are listening to people that have been shown to be lying about it, and giving them credence. You do all of this to allow yourself to act as though you have come to a sound, well researched conclusion.

 

[Danmac]

As a Christian you shouldn't believe n the creation myth set forth in Genesis as being literal fact, because it isn't. You don't want to base your religion on lies, do you?

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

 

[Tristesse]

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

I don't recall her saying that there isn't a god.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

I don't know what post you were reading but she said nothing about god not existing. She merely said that you shouldn't take the genesis account literally.

Big difference there.

 

[Autodidact]

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

By accepting and studying science.

On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Wow, are you really this hard to communicate with? Science says nothing about the existence of God. We can all agree, for the purpose of this thread, that God created all things. We're not discussing whether God created all species; we're assuming that. We're not discussing that. We're trying to figure out how. HOW, NOT WHO. HOW, HOW, HOW. I really don't know a simpler way to communicate this elementary concept to you. I do not say there is no God (in this thread.) ToE works quite well assuming there is a God. What I say is, Genesis is not literally true. Are you really unable to understand the difference between these two things?

HOW. NOT WHO, HOW.

You accuse me of being rude but honestly, when I have to say the same thing over and over and over and over, I lose my patience.

So please tell me, do you really not understand what I'm saying? Or are you deliberately twisting it? In another words, once again, are you really really stupid? Or completely dishonest?

Maybe someone else can figure out a way to communicate this simple concept to Danmac?

 

[fantome profane]

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

Can you point to a post where Autodidact “uses science to say there is no God”?

 

[Wotan]

That is your opinion. How did you arrive at this conclusion? On one hand you say science cannot investigate the presence of God, but you turn right around and use science to say there is no God. How did you arrive at your conclusion?

That is NOT what she said. God and ToE are compatible. You only need say god created the world and the systems that lets evolution flourish. You can add as some do that he guided evolution.

It is your primitive version of the "faith" that is the problem. Your kind of mindless reasonless verbatim reading is the kind of thing that is taught in bible school to 5 yr olds.

Perhaps that is where you learned it.

 

[Danmac]

I don't recall her saying that there isn't a god.

Science constantly makes discoveries that previous generations would have called wacko if such ideas were suggested. Like going to the moon. In concluding that there is no God are atheists making the same mistake? How can you be certain in either case?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Science constantly makes discoveries that previous generations would have called wacko if such ideas were suggested. Like going to the moon. In concluding that there is no God are atheists making the same mistake? How can you be certain in either case?

Create a thread, Danmac. This one isn't about Atheism, it's about Evolution.

 

[Wotan]

Science constantly makes discoveries that previous generations would have called wacko if such ideas were suggested. Like going to the moon. In concluding that there is no God are atheists making the same mistake? How can you be certain in either case?

And WHAT has this to do with ToE?

 

[Danmac]

That is NOT what she said. God and ToE are compatible. You only need say god created the world and the systems that lets evolution flourish. You can add as some do that he guided evolution.

It is your primitive version of the "faith" that is the problem. Your kind of mindless reasonless verbatim reading is the kind of thing that is taught in bible school to 5 yr olds.

Perhaps that is where you learned it.

If I were to agree that God guided evolution, why am I unreasonable for believing that evolution is an orchard and not a tree?