Evolution vs. Creation

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
So a news story about David Copperfield means that one day he will be revered as a God? You sure you aren't interested in this Bridge I have in Brooklyn? One owner? Good deal!

if the storys were not true they would have stone them to death and yet they didnt cause they were telling the truth!

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
You're the frightfully stupid one for thinking all matter that ever did and does exist could fit on to a pins head and you call that sound science.
Yes keep drinking the Koolaid.

And you have no difficulty in clinging on to a belief that there is a human shaped entity sitting outside of time and space (whatever that means), who created the entire universe with all the matter and energy, all the billions of stars and planets, all the black holes and empty space, all the life in the universe, all this with just a thought?
And that too without a single shred of evidence? All to be believed on faith based on a 2000 year old book which cannot be questioned? How ridiculous is that?
The scientific model is based on evidence, not faith. That is why even when something appears counter intuitive, scientists accept them because evidence points that way.

lisawow wrote:

<quoted text>Sort of kills the motivation to be king if you still have to sleep on an iron bed...

it kept hot during the winter months!LOL

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Physics yes. Darwin evolution as it reelates to macro change aat macro levels. No. it is assumption. <quoted text> OK. <quoted text> If you use scientific method for supernatural claims then you only arrive at your original conclusion. Science is limited to what normally happens in time and space.

Not so. If you understood the history of evolutionary thought, which pre-dates Darwin by centuries, it was the large scalle changes, what you like to think of as 'macro' that drove the search for answers. The idea of small changes accumulating into the larger changes wasn't confirmed until we re-discovered Mendel's work. Physics supports the changes at each level, not macro vs micro, but the changes. Geology, paleontology, chemistry, even climatology, astronomy, and cosmology all support biological evolution on both macro and micro.

in fact, according to biolgists the idea of macro vs micro is one made up so creationist can save face after they decided there was too much evidence to keep denying evolution. So they drew this imaginary line and keep pushing that line. To real scientists, there is no difference. The whole idea of 'species' is a man-made label for us to use when catagorizing things. Nothing more. If species was a real 'barrier' then hybrids couldn't possibly exist. Yet evolutionary theory explains hybrids quite well.

Of course the Biblical lack of definition of 'kinds' sorta makes it impossible for you to explain it without resorting to some fancy rationalization to try and force the evidence to fit your pet ideas. Luckily science doesn't work that way. Pet ideas tend to fall when faced with real evidence. Your rationaslizations are a poor substitute for evidence.

forreal wrote:

<quoted text>Ted you arose from the dead you are a mircale!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Naw, you just wish I were dead. I, on the other hand, don't really care about you for anything. You can drop dead or continue to live your life of lies, I don't care.

Until, that is, you try and push your idea of a religion onto other people, especially school children. Then I care and will do what I can to ensure your religion stays out of the science classroom.

Coca-Cola Fan wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not offending by it, I was merely making an observation of how some people i here seem to get angry over this subject.

It can happen.

Emotions can also be falsely read.

For example, when I call a fundie a liar, it's not because I'm angry. I'm simply pointing it out the same way I would point out that the sky is blue or water is wet.

I don't expect fundies to go against their nature.

MikeF wrote:

<quoted text>
I did have a sharp pain in my left big toe yesterday. Was that it?

That was it!:-) The spirit of your left big toe is in hell, paying for your disbelief!

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
And you have reached the last refuge of the Creationist poster. When you cannot substantiate anything you claim, when your critics refuse to let you off the hook for making those unsupported claims, and when your own arguments start sounding hollow in your own ears ... you start calling people names.
Since my address is not under a bridge and I do not grind up bones to make my bread, I will give your comment all the thought it requires and laugh at it.
Thank you Ladies and Gentleman, you have reaching the entertainment portion of this evening's show. I give you KJV's squirming and willingness to say anything to save his close-minded idea of a religious belief! Please hold your applause till the end or you might some less-then-gem-like comment for your laughter and enjoyment!
Although, be careful, like the camel that spits, KJV tries to spit some invective when he feels you aren't giving his 'genius' it's due! So don't stand too close, or he might drool on you!

His "genius" made him use a linky I provided demonstrating the early writers of the Bible were flat Earthers to support his claim the Earth was a sphere.

However his most impressive rebuttal so far has been: "Wrong and wrong."

TheBlackSheep wrote:

<quoted text>
That was it!:-) The spirit of your left big toe is in hell, paying for your disbelief!

Crap! Next it'll be one foot in the grave.

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
Err, no. Nonsense as usual.
Historians reject the Resurrection because it is common human experience that when people die, THEY STAY DEAD, i.e. no one "resurrects."
That's why they have a natural and rational bias against a story obviously written by ancient human beings working a religious agenda.

Now here's something we can agree on, if something is not alive it's dead, and it doesn't come to life.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Now here's something we can agree on, if something is not alive it's dead, and it doesn't come to life.

Fundie neurological processing network systems.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Fundie neurological processing network systems.

Puddle goo theological evangelist who's faith is threatened.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Now here's something we can agree on, if something is not alive it's dead, and it doesn't come to life.

Good. Then you agree the gospel story is therefore bullsh!t.

Thanks!

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Now here's something we can agree on, if something is not alive it's dead, and it doesn't come to life.

Goddamnit! We have a couple of million christians who believe their god died and then came back to life! Now what do we feed them?

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Simply propaganda.
False - I know atheists who show remorse.
Revealing - showing what you imagine your own heart to be like if you did not fear the big sky daddy. It might be true that you would turn into a sociopathic monster, but its not true of most people.

Godbot's don't understand feelings are a human equation and the atheist has no rebound for forgiveness , only the write in history. But it doesn't make one be right belief or non belief.
What makes things right is memory and honor. Memory is a strength
honor is a gift. Strength and Honor we hold to the word of the godly to.

Gillette wrote:

<quoted text>
The evidence is in the text ITSELF!

The whole of the Bible attributes the first Five Books to Moses. Naturally he did not write the circumstances surrounding his death. Probably attributed to Joshua.

And it's been known in mainstream Christian theological institutes and seminaries for over 100 years that the Pentateuch was written by several authors (probably 5) and not by someone named "Moses."
The hard evidence is the text itself, which can be taken apart into its different component stories.
Those interested can read the evidence in detail for the Documentary Hypothesis here:
"The Documentary Hypothesis, and the identity of the Pentateuch's authors"
Again, TAUGHT IN ALL MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN SEMINARIES, etc. Not sure what planet YOU live on!

Darwin Evolution is taught in Christian Schools. Does not mean students believe it. You don't know how DH is taught. Liberal schools probably teach it as real deal. That does not mean all students accept it. It is probably information students need to know but not necessarly accept. Perhaps they say...this is what it teaches and these are the rebuttals. Who knows. What i know is it is a joke amoung most Christians who have taken it or know anything about it. Kind of like Harry's abortion in Law School. Legal basis for abortion. A problem i have is the assumption it was written hundreds of years after Moses. It is pure BS. As it relates to the Genesis assumption about the city of Dan. That is easily explained in the cites referenced earlier. You know little about how the Christian community works.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Puddle goo theological evangelist who's faith is threatened.

By what?(shrug)

Still waiting for the big guns Bo, but if yelling "puddle goo" is all you got, well...

The Dude wrote:

So you're saying I might have something, but then you already know experts who disagree with you anyway. And you would dismiss them anyway because they have an anti-supernatural bias.
And as I pointed out, so do you.
Your admission that you have no evidence is noted.

Guys like you and me know less than 1% of all there is to know and yet you make huge assumptions on important matters based on what little you actually know and your fixed anti supernatural bias. Since there is no God you assume your rights come fromn men with no souls. You assume with death comes extinction. You go against the majority of humanity from the beginning to now as it relates to some kind of belief in God or Creator. Why is that? Because folks like you are smarter than everybody else. Dream on Dude.

lightbeamrider wrote:

<quoted text> Guys like you and me know less than 1% of all there is to know and yet you make huge assumptions on important matters based on what little you actually know

Like?

lightbeamrider wrote:

and your fixed anti supernatural bias.

YOU have an anti-supernatural bias.

You simply assume your supernatural bias is better than everyone else's.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Since there is no God

Not a claim I have made.

lightbeamrider wrote:

you assume your rights come fromn men with no souls.

"Rights" is an abstract mental construct.

lightbeamrider wrote:

You assume with death comes extinction.

Extinction refers to entire species. Death can happen to individuals.

lightbeamrider wrote:

You go against the majority of humanity from the beginning to now

Argumentum ad populum.

lightbeamrider wrote:

as it relates to some kind of belief in God or Creator. Why is that?

It is possible that most are incredulous. It is also possible that people tend to think that way because that's the way they were brought up, passed down through the ages by our ancient ancestors. This is not too surprising as it's how we pass on the concepts of strength in communities, altruism learned by our forbears.

It is also possible a God or Gods exist, and it/they are NOTHING AT ALL like the image you have in your mind.

lightbeamrider wrote:

Because folks like you are smarter than everybody else. Dream on Dude.

That is not a claim I've made either. But do you have anything to offer other than whining over the fact that you have zippo-diddly squat in the way of objective evidence and we both know it?

I note (again) that you *still* have not bothered to go back and correct any of your previous mistakes.

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
You are nearly right in some of your comments ... science cannot prove or disprove things of a supernatural origin ... but are you making claims of a supernatural origin?

Origin of what?

What you are doing is making are assumptions of a supernatural origin for events that science has explained. So in other words science is tearing down your assumptions, not addressing anything supernatural.

Vague statement.

So when you claim that a Deity did something,

Christ rose from the dead bodily. Lets stick with that one.

all science has done is offer an alternative explanation ... the real difference comes in the evidence. When science forms an explanation, it is based on the evidence. When you offer an explanation you are making an unsupported assumption and when your assumptionws come crashing and burning down around you, you blame science for attacking the very idea of God.

LOL. Yes i blame Science. It's all Einstein's fault.

Science has never addressed the idea of if there is or is not a God, nor has it attacked anything God may have done

Agree.

... you are the one making claims and claiming the involvement of a deity, science simply proves your assumptions are unsupported and therefor worthless.

Yes Deity is involved. Worthless is your opinion. Another vague statement.

Listen to your own arguments, the logical fallacies abound. You use the Bible to claim the infallibility of the Bible because it says so in the Bible! Do you know would happen to a scientist who used such poor logic skills?

That is what Historians do when they verify the existence of Jesus. They use the Bible. They are the experts in their field. You assume the Bible is one source! It is multiple sources compiled. Infallibility of the Bible? Where did i once print it is error free? I know them better than most. They have been known for years. If you know less than 1% of all there is to know can Deity exist outside of what you know? That is, by the way well over 99%. 99% of all there is to know you do not know. Don't be so sure you are right when it comes to God and the resurrection of Christ. I know of no one in Astronomy who thanks the powers that be for Darwin, for without Origin of Species, Astronomy would never exist!