Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amen. Accepted theories are as prevalent as accepted myths. Darwinism is one of the most fallacious evils of the last 2 centuries.
But that's what happens when one reduces a human being to the level of what can be analyzed in a petrie dish; false claims, arrogance and evil actions. Evil also happens when people worship scientists as gods and blindly accept anything they say.
The petri dish is just a tool for asking Mother Nature one simple question at a time. Sorry that such advancement of knowledge is so threatening to you.
(Oh, and BTW, "The Story of Evolution"? Available at amazon.com? Never heard of it!)
No Scientists (except the evil ones in old sci-fi movies) reduce humanity to the level of same; only the Church and organized thug theocracies reduce humanity to the level of a "peasant tither" whose further education and betterment is suppressed violently.
I keep waiting fo the evil scientist worshipers to arrive and start laying gold and virgins at my feet. Anyone know exactly where and when this is scheduled?
You castigate the spiritually immature for being immature primarily because you seem to have by-passed spiritual maturity and thrown out the "baby" with the "dirty bath water." I call that spiritual over-maturity (like teen-age over-estimation of their maturity and knowledge of the world) . . . which is even less acceptable. Lighten up . . . saplings must grow into adult trees and eventually mighty oaks . . . they do NOT achieve it by force of will . . . something you might consider about your own status.
I wonder if theists can empirically demonstrate how someone can make something out of nothing(and none of that ontological mumbo jumbo about how god is omnipotent) since you also can't make something out of nothing. This is the main problem in saying that life had to have arisen from creation rather than natural processes. The fact that the question of how life first came about is unknown isn't indicative of divine creation since believers don't have any testable evidence that proves it's so. The fact is though that how life originally came from nonlife has just not been answered yet although that doesn't mean the answer is creation.
This is the main problem in saying that life had to have arisen from creation rather than natural processes.
I am utterly amazed at how supposedly knowledgeable and rational people can make statements like this AS IF they were saying something meaningful or explanatory. What are natural processes and how do you distinguish them from God processes . . . since they are the same processes (identical) . . . except for the name you prefer to use. It boggles.
I am utterly amazed at how supposedly knowledgeable and rational people can make statements like this AS IF they were saying something meaningful or explanatory. What are natural processes and how do you distinguish them from God processes . . . since they are the same processes (identical) . . . except for the name you prefer to use. It boggles.
They don't use your definitions nor do they feel the need to worship everything that is.
They don't use your definitions nor do they feel the need to worship everything that is.
That is not the real point . . . worship schmorship, definition schmefinition . . . you cavalierly proclaim that God does NOT EXIST . . . all the while investigating and acquiring more and more proof and learning more about God every day. For some reason you actually believe that by changing the name God ceases to exist . . . it boggles. Any specific descriptions, of course, are a separate matter . . . but the EXISTENCE is indisputable..
What are natural processes and how do you distinguish them from God processes . . . since they are the same processes (identical) . . . except for the name you prefer to use. It boggles.
NooooOooo... "natural processes" are those which we can observe now, in nature, proceeding in some orderly if not completely understood fashion. Some of us, being curious humans, are encouraged to further examine them, to seek possible rational answers that "fit" into a Greater Unified Theory.
On completion of some of the usual querical processes (documented, reproduceable, peer-reviewed, etc.) we thereby come to some reasonable conclusions. Not necessarily "The Final Solution" that Christianity posits, but rather something which, taken in context and in full consideration of the situation, tends to further our overall understanding of the situation. Sans biblical incantations, theistic in-fighting and blood-letting.
God processes? So far they have been explained to me as unproveable, supernatural mumbo-jumbo, easily attributable to Zeus or Yoda with equal veracity as to the Christian Creator or the Wolf Father of our equally valid First Nation brothers (minus, in their case, the chaffing and invasive prosletyzing of righteous Xtians of course...).
Carefully enough worded for you, Mystic?
BTW, I'm assuming, perhaps erroneously, that those who venture out onto these threads to toss about such statements as Evolution being fallaciously evil are capable of taking some mature responsibility for their statements. And some expectation of then having to defend their insults. Perhaps you feel we should adopt a grading system where they assign to themselves a minor grade level of thinking and emotional and spiritual maturity prior to posting their indefensible commentaries as a defense against the anticipated consequences? OK by me.
You presume far too much about my spiritual & personal maturity. It reflects my life's experiences, the totality of my deliberations, the trials I have faced, and the conclusions I have reached. They may, just possibly, exceed yours? I know how unlikely that must seem to you.
After all, I had to suspend my PhD work a little early due to fiscal conditions. Perhaps some day I can reach the unreachable heights? Please can I come in from the cold?
Meantime, I do not brook idiotic insults from IDTs like "C". Look back at his quote that I re-posted. Quite insulting wouldn't you say? Should I pat him on the head? Sorry. No time.
That is not the real point . . . worship schmorship, definition schmefinition . . . you cavalierly proclaim that God does NOT EXIST . . . all the while investigating and acquiring more and more proof and learning more about God every day. For some reason you actually believe that by changing the name God ceases to exist . . . it boggles. Any specific descriptions, of course, are a separate matter
Why yes, if you are vague enough about the definition of god then no one can argue anything against you.
NooooOooo... "natural processes" are those which we can observe now, in nature, proceeding in some orderly if not completely understood fashion. Some of us, being curious humans, are encouraged to further examine them, to seek possible rational answers that "fit" into a Greater Unified Theory.
On completion of some of the usual querical processes (documented, reproduceable, peer-reviewed, etc.) we thereby come to some reasonable conclusions. Not necessarily "The Final Solution" that Christianity posits, but rather something which, taken in context and in full consideration of the situation, tends to further our overall understanding of the situation. Sans biblical incantations, theistic in-fighting and blood-letting.
God processes? So far they have been explained to me as unproveable, supernatural mumbo-jumbo, easily attributable to Zeus or Yoda with equal veracity as to the Christian Creator or the Wolf Father of our equally valid First Nation brothers (minus, in their case, the chaffing and invasive prosletyzing of righteous Xtians of course...).
Carefully enough worded for you, Mystic?
Of course not . . . all you have said is you reject all the other descriptions of God's processes that we haven't validated scientifically. No problem . . . goodbye all those other descriptions and names you don't like . . . you are still left with the undeniable existence and some fairly detailed descriptions of God. How do you propose to get rid of them to justify your rejection of the existence of God. Surely you don't actually believe you know ALL the attributes and can absolutely maintain there are no others. Sorry . . . no sale . . . God still exists . . . you just have a name problem.
Quote:
BTW, I'm assuming, perhaps erroneously, that those who venture out onto these threads to toss about such statements as Evolution being fallaciously evil are capable of taking some mature responsibility for their statements. And some expectation of then having to defend their insults. Perhaps you feel we should adopt a grading system where they assign to themselves a minor grade level of thinking and emotional and spiritual maturity prior to posting their indefensible commentaries as a defense against the anticipated consequences? OK by me.
Those who reject ANY scientific evidence are fools . . . they are the only attributes of our God we can be absolutely sure of to date . . . subject to revision in the future.
Quote:
You presume far too much about my spiritual & personal maturity. It reflects my life's experiences, the totality of my deliberations, the trials I have faced, and the conclusions I have reached. They may, just possibly, exceed yours? I know how unlikely that must seem to you.
I have no knowledge of you other than that gleaned from your positions in your posts. That you can study an existing ubiquitous and amazing phenomenon (God) so diligently and deny its existence so vehemently simply because other descriptions (and names) are so unpalatable to you . . . that is throwing baby (God) out with the dirty bath water(unpalatable name and descriptions). That is what I characterize as spiritual "over-maturity" . . . you presume too much, sir . . . nothing personal. You have a fine mind by all appearances.
Quote:
After all, I had to suspend my PhD work a little early due to fiscal conditions. Perhaps some day I can reach the unreachable heights? Please can I come in from the cold?
I am quite familiar with the tribulations of the pursuit of a PhD, rifleman . . . you have my sympathies and most sincere good wishes that you can ultimately finish.
Quote:
Meantime, I do not brook idiotic insults from IDTs like "C". Look back at his quote that I re-posted. Quite insulting wouldn't you say? Should I pat him on the head? Sorry. No time.
You are justified in your reaction to insults, rifleman. There are many here who engage in that sort of thing instead of characterizing arguments and positions they focus on character and emotion. (I falter and slip into it myself on occasion when I get particularly aggravated by what I see as obnoxious posting behavior . . . though I try diligently to keep the focus on content. Be well, Mystic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone know exactly where and when this is scheduled?
