Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Oh, I understand science alright. It's just that I don't agree with evolution. There's a lot of other science I believe.

Michael, you keep claiming that you understand science, but you do not demonstrate the veracity of that claim. Science is not a choice with which to agree or disagree. It is a logical conclusion based on evidence. What you choose to believe is certainly your business.

"A person is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own evidence."

It's just a different reality for some.

There is only 1 reality. A person can either strive to make their perception as close to that objective reality as possible. Or choose to remain oblivious from certain aspects of that reality, because they may not like the implications. But as I stated before, negligence causes collateral damage. And often, a person in defense of their negligence will employ malice.

I've not had a gun pointed to my head either and I understand what evolution is trying to say, but I don't believe it.

No, you do not understand enough of science to even make such a choice.

No collateral damage with me.

Perhaps not any of which you are aware. But being oblivious means you would not notice it if it were there.

I also won't use the threat of hell on you.

I would not phase me if you did. No human is God. I can read the Bible for myself and come to my own conclusion.

You're Christian, as far as I know. You just don't believe the Bible on some issues.

I believe the Bible on all issues that I understand. The ones I don't understand I work diligently to understand. Unfortunately people like you who are not as mentally acute or well educated, want to force their ideas about what the Bible says upon me.

 

[MichaelCadry]

How is something judged other than by peer scrutiny, Michael?

And yes, if a theory relies on a supernatural element, then as a scientific theory is it wholly outdated. You keep tryingto conflate science and religious belief, and that's just not how it is


I noticed that you jumped to creationism's defense, but not to Lamarckism's. Why is that?

Dear Kdall,

Then why don't you judge theology with your peers? Kdall, are you an atheist? Why don't you believe the Bible? I don't know what Lamarckism is about and don't even know if I care to.

Michael

:rapture:

 

[StanJ]

Dear noguru,

No, StanJ is no coward. He just gets tired of listening to you.

Michael

:duh: :rapture:

and once I identify I troll, I don't feed it.

 

[noguru]

Dear Kdall,

Then why don't you judge theology with your peers? Kdall, are you an atheist? Why don't you believe the Bible? I don't know what Lamarckism is about and don't even know if I care to.

Michael

:rapture:

This is a prime example of the point I have been making. You sincerely do not see anything wrong with this sentiment?

 

[noguru]

and once I identify I troll, I don't feed it.

Well not directly at least.

But you call posters trolls simply because you don't like what they post.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you keep claiming that you understand science, but you do not demonstrate the veracity of that claim. Science is not a choice with which to agree or disagree. It is a logical conclusion based on evidence. What you choose to believe is certainly your business.

"A person is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own evidence."

You keep forgetting. I have my own evidence. I was visited by the Lord a couple times and also by angels a number of times. And the Holy Ghost three times. I certainly think I have enough proof to know they exist. Once it happens to you, then tell me what you believe. It will happen to you in the near future.

There is only 1 reality. A person can either strive to make their perception as close to that objective reality as possible. Or choose to remain oblivious from certain aspects of that reality, because they may not like the implications. But as I stated before, negligence causes collateral damage. And often, a person in defense of their negligence will employ malice.

I'm not going to employ malice, don't worry.

No, you do not understand enough of science to even make such a choice.

You don't realize that I understand a lot about science. I just prefer my God compared to Darwin.

Perhaps not any of which you are aware. But being oblivious means you would not notice it if it were there.

I would not phase me if you did. No human is God. I can read the Bible for myself and come to my own conclusion.

I believe the Bible on all issues that I understand. The ones I don't understand I work diligently to understand. Unfortunately people like you who are not as mentally acute or well educated, want to force their ideas about what the Bible says upon me.

I'm mentally acute and well-educated. I've just had God in my life and you haven't. I'm also not trying to force my ideas on you. I could say you are forcing your science on me also, if that's the case.

If God wants me to know and believe in your evolution, I'm sure He will tell me either before I die or afterwards. You see. I believe in an afterwards.

Michael

:think: :rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

OK noguru,

I looked up Lamarckism and I don't agree. Does that make you feel better?

Michael

 

[Kdall]

Dear Kdall,

How do you reconcile what is written in Rev. 20:5, "But the rest of the dead did not LIVE AGAIN until the thousand years were finished?" There you go again forgetting what the Bible says, just like you do with the Creation account. It's fine with me if that's what you want to do.

Michael

I was defending your belief, Michael. What I meant is that there is no more proof that there isn't reincarnation than there is, so it is entirely up to each person's opinion. Science doesn't apply to it

 

[Kdall]

Dear Kdall,

Then why don't you judge theology with your peers? Kdall, are you an atheist? Why don't you believe the Bible? I don't know what Lamarckism is about and don't even know if I care to.

Michael

:rapture:

I've told you before, I do believe the Bible. I just believe that not all of it is to be interpreted literally.

You can judge one's theology, but you cannot scrutinize it scientifically because it's all philosophy. There's no tangible evidence to draw conclusions from.

 

[noguru]

I'm not going to employ malice, don't worry.

I have to agree with you there Michael. You are one of the more benevolent people here with whom there is disagreement. I can agree to disagree. I will always tell you how I honestly see things because if I did not, I would not be true to a principle I hold as a high priority.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I was defending your belief, Michael. What I meant is that there is no more proof that there isn't reincarnation than there is, so it is entirely up to each person's opinion. Science doesn't apply to it

Dear Kdall,

Okay. Thank you! I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

God Be With You,

Michael

:rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I've told you before, I do believe the Bible. I just believe that not all of it is to be interpreted literally.

You can judge one's theology, but you cannot scrutinize it scientifically because it's all philosophy. There's no tangible evidence to draw conclusions from.

Dear Kdall,

I know how you feel and I appreciate it. Normally I would say just fine, but there's still this problem with me believing in the Creation account recorded in the Bible and not evolution.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I have to agree with you there Michael. You are one of the more benevolent people here with whom there is disagreement. I can agree to disagree. I will always tell you how I honestly see things because if I did not, I would not be true to a principle I hold as a high priority.

Dear noguru,

We can agree to disagree. That's fine with me. I would not be true to a principle that I hold as a priority either.

Peace, With Love,

Michael

:rapture:

 

[DavisBJ]

I was defending your belief, Michael. What I meant is that there is no more proof that there isn't reincarnation than there is, so it is entirely up to each person's opinion. Science doesn't apply to it

I did a quick check, and two of the primary resources for YEC arguments (ICR and AIG) both come out strongly in opposition to reincarnation.

As to reincarnation being amenable to scientific investigation, it would be a candidate if it happened in a way which allowed credible and repeatable testing. Specifically, if someone says I am a reincarnated being, that would mean nothing to me if I were not able to remember my prior lives with some degree of fidelity. Having multiple lives so one can work towards some ultimate degree of belief or understanding or perfection seems a bit pointless if every time you are reborn you have no recollection of what stage of progress you were at, or even what the grand goal is.

There are some accounts of people claiming past life memories, such as is recounted in a book called “Soul Survivor” – in which an infant boy reportedly had intimate knowledge of a particular WW II American ship that he was assigned to when he died late in WW II. His devout Christian father said he (the father) fought diligently against the idea that his son was the reincarnation of a deceased war pilot, but when detail after detail that his not-even-in-kindergarten son talked about checkout to be correct, the father had no choice but to accept the idea. (My impression was the author of the book saw an opportunity to sell the book to a fair number of interested readers, and in dressing up the story he allowed some discrepancies to creep into the telling.)

 

[patrick jane]

and once I identify I troll, I don't feed it.

once you identify, YOU TROLL ?

thanks for the warning -

once you identify what ? -

 

[MichaelCadry]

I did a quick check, and two of the primary resources for YEC arguments (ICR and AIG) both come out strongly in opposition to reincarnation.

As to reincarnation being amenable to scientific investigation, it would be a candidate if it happened in a way which allowed credible and repeatable testing. Specifically, if someone says I am a reincarnated being, that would mean nothing to me if I were not able to remember my prior lives with some degree of fidelity. Having multiple lives so one can work towards some ultimate degree of belief or understanding or perfection seems a bit pointless if every time you are reborn you have no recollection of what stage of progress you were at, or even what the grand goal is.

There are some accounts of people claiming past life memories, such as is recounted in a book called “Soul Survivor” – in which an infant boy reportedly had intimate knowledge of a particular WW II American ship that he was assigned to when he died late in WW II. His devout Christian father said he (the father) fought diligently against the idea that his son was the reincarnation of a deceased war pilot, but when detail after detail that his not-even-in-kindergarten son talked about checkout to be correct, the father had no choice but to accept the idea. (My impression was the author of the book saw an opportunity to sell the book to a fair number of interested readers, and in dressing up the story he allowed some discrepancies to creep into the telling.)

Dear DavisBJ,

I used to be against it also. Well, if I'm wrong, fine. I'll be the first to ask God when I'm with Him. You never know. Maybe there is just that one reincarnation after a thousand years. I would expect that only God was keeping track of each soul learning how to choose between good and evil. That's what I think our life is about now. To learn how to choose the good over the evil. Same thing that Adam and Eve had to do. That is what the angels do. They try to help you choose the good. That is their job to guide each of us during our lives.


Michael

:rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

once you identify, YOU TROLL ?

thanks for the warning -

once you identify what ? -

Dear patrick jane,

I'm sure he meant the word "a" instead of "I." It happens.

Michael

:rapture:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DavisBJ,

Well, looks like things are fine now after all of this time. It takes some durability and much diligence. I can still believe in the Creation account of mankind. If the scientists ever do PROVE evolution, I will be surprised. What are they claiming? Soft tissue in bone marrow?? Iron?? Whatever. Que sera, sera! It's time to jump on the peace train.

May You Choose The Right Path, DavisBJ,

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

… If the scientists ever do PROVE evolution

Remember, Michael, science doesn’t prove things. It does give us a good method to learn about things, and as our understanding grows, our confidence in most of our conclusions grows. And sometimes we get surprised.

The vast majority of evolution happened long ago in conditions that we have to make some assumptions about, and the detailed evidence in many cases simply no longer exists. But enough has been found for us to be pretty sure we know the basic timeline and understand the message of the fossil record.

… May You Choose The Right Path, DavisBJ,

Michael

Thank you, and I am quite confident that I have chosen the right path.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Remember, Michael, science doesn’t prove things. It does give us a good method to learn about things, and as our understanding grows, our confidence in most of our conclusions grows. And sometimes we get surprised.

The vast majority of evolution happened long ago in conditions that we have to make some assumptions about, and the detailed evidence in many cases simply no longer exists. But enough has been found for us to be pretty sure we know the basic timeline and understand the message of the fossil record.

Why would evolution only happen long ago? Why not now too? Are you sure your evolution is not really 6,000 years old?

Thank you, and I am quite confident that I have chosen the right path.

But you haven't chosen the right path without God and Jesus in your life.

Michael

:think: :rapture: