Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

I don't put any stock in private messages to people from God. It is pointless. I'm referring to scholarship about what ancient writers were saying, what vocab they were using and why. If the places mentioned by Peter were just 'places' in 'souls' then so are angels. Sorry, you're totally off on that. Angels are half divine, half human, and can be corporeal and speak human languages. As you would know if you would listen to your Bible instead of your private messages from God. Failed.

Dear Interplanner,

Angels are not half divine. God made them the host of heaven. They can speak the same as the Lord God speaks. English, or whatever language He chooses. I listen to my Bible. And my Lord and the angels that visit me. Why wouldn't I? Would you turn them away??!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Intelligent people are deceived be Satan even today. Every day in the news, we hear stories of supposedly smart people showing poor judgement.


Do you really think God would have created Adam and Eve in His image....but with low intelligence?


Of course science advances. But that doesn't mean we are more intelligent than Adam and Eve..... or more intelligent than the Aztec, or other ancient civilizations.

Dear 6days,

But, we must know that despite Adam and Eve's intelligence, they still didn't use their brains when it came to choosing to eat the forbidden fruit.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, science doesn't lie. Yes some scientists have lied, scientists are human beings, but other scientists found them out and that way science itself keeps heading in generally the right direction.
The agenda of science is science, not to falsify religious belief.
Science draws its own conclusions based on evidence regardless of anyone's religious doctrine but if those conclusions happen to contradict a literal Genesis then that is not because of any agenda other than the gaining of real knowledge.
Should a list of false prophets, fake psychics and religious charlatans shatter your religious faith?

Dear alwight,

I definitely see your point! I am sorry and I understand now. Please forgive me. Scientists are like every other kinds of people.

The Very Best Of Wishes,

Michael

:thumb: :wave2: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'll thank you not to tell me what I believe. Thanks.

And you still haven't explained how the god of your beliefs, escapes the burden of existence that you put on everything else. It shouldn't be too difficult since your God (if it exists) is a more complex entity that anything else so it, more than anything, requires a cause.

So, from your own argument, what caused God? Testable evidence only please.

Not interested in bald claims

Last part in bold because that is invariably all I see.

Re your daft quote: "you look at a Rembrandt and think, isn't paint clever,"

-You look at your belief in God and think, wow, isn't magic amazing.- It's exactly the same though I doubt you'll admit it.

Dear Hedshaker,

Our God is quite complex and does not have a 'cause.' He's always been!! Doesn't that work with your vision of existence. Probably not. He is the beginning and the end, of which there is neither. Think of a circle is all I can tell you.

Thanks and Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

:thumb: :wave2:

 

[MichaelCadry]

No, I actually said in one of my posts, and you can check, that you are at liberty to believe whatever you like. I don't care what you believe. What sickens me is this constant pseudo-logic that you guys spout promoting your beliefs as the default position while those who do not subscribe as some how not rational. Your ridiculous Rembrandt quote comes to mind.

Oh dear. You're joking right? Here is your reply to Alwight that instigated this exchange:

Are you getting it yet? It's for us to explain in detail every finer nuance of how nature works without you God, but for you, God needs no explanation at all, regardless of the fact that, according to you guys, your God is infinitely more complex than anything in nature since it is your God that is responsible for said nature.

Sorry but no, you do not get a pass on your own logic. Explain where your God came from first and then we can talk about nature. Ok?

Look at who? And I assure you there was no subtlety missed by me in your Rembrandt quote, you just don't like it when the same argument is turned on your God-belief..... how awesome must magic be, right?

Or what about an invisible sky spirit poofing a whole universe, or a gravity defying walk on water, or instantly making un-fermented water into wine.... need I go on? How about someone coming back to life after being clinically dead for 3 days? The nonsense goes on and on..... and no, I do not believe a word of it. Not a word!

I would say the LION, WITCH AND WARDROBE has nothing on your magic man in the sky.

And?

Bull! This brings us right back to the original questions regarding your pseudo-logic about everything else. Where did your God come from? Who or what created it? ***

I don't believe in pixies, fairies, gods, angels or leprechauns. And that's not to mention ghosts, occult, paranormal activity etc etc etc etc. You might as well don a witch doctor outfit and throw monkey bones or cast a Hex at me. It's all mumbo jumbo. All of it. Every word. Geddit?

Either give a rational, evidence based explanation for the existence of your God, or stop asking for the same regarding what exists in nature without your God.

There is much about nature and reality we do not yet understand, that's true. But luckily we now have a true and tested method for slowly chipping away at these questions. Beliefs without evidence are rejected, for good reason. The mystics and the theists and the prophets and the seers have had thousands of years to present their case. to show their evidence and have provided no answers at all. Therefore it is rational and reasonable to assume they have none.

*** I have asked you the question 3 times now. If you do not at least attempt an answer, with repeatable, testable evidence, then please don't bother replying because I have no intention of wasting my valuable time on this flimflam further.

Regards

Dear Hedshaker,

If you are referring to Jesus, who died and came back to life in 3 days, God made Himself. And yes, you will be surprised to find out that life can come from being dead. You will find that out shortly, is all I will tell you for now.

It is all very simple. Think of God as a circle. No beginning and no ending. Same thing with Jesus. He is also a circle. He says Himself, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." {See Rev. 22:13KJV}.

Please see, Hedshaker. God has always been. God will always be. It is simple, unless you must put a beginning and end on something or someone. That's too human. Otherwise, it's quite easy to understand.

Warmest Wishes,

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

No, I actually said in one of my posts, and you can check, that you are at liberty to believe whatever you like. I don't care what you believe. What sickens me is this constant pseudo-logic that you guys spout promoting your beliefs as the default position while those who do not subscribe as some how not rational. Your ridiculous Rembrandt quote comes to mind.

Oh dear. You're joking right? Here is your reply to Alwight that instigated this exchange:

Are you getting it yet? It's for us to explain in detail every finer nuance of how nature works without you God, but for you, God needs no explanation at all, regardless of the fact that, according to you guys, your God is infinitely more complex than anything in nature since it is your God that is responsible for said nature.

Sorry but no, you do not get a pass on your own logic. Explain where your God came from first and then we can talk about nature. Ok?

Look at who? And I assure you there was no subtlety missed by me in your Rembrandt quote, you just don't like it when the same argument is turned on your God-belief..... how awesome must magic be, right?

Or what about an invisible sky spirit poofing a whole universe, or a gravity defying walk on water, or instantly making un-fermented water into wine.... need I go on? How about someone coming back to life after being clinically dead for 3 days? The nonsense goes on and on..... and no, I do not believe a word of it. Not a word!

I would say the LION, WITCH AND WARDROBE has nothing on your magic man in the sky.

And?

Bull! This brings us right back to the original questions regarding your pseudo-logic about everything else. Where did your God come from? Who or what created it? ***

I don't believe in pixies, fairies, gods, angels or leprechauns. And that's not to mention ghosts, occult, paranormal activity etc etc etc etc. You might as well don a witch doctor outfit and throw monkey bones or cast a Hex at me. It's all mumbo jumbo. All of it. Every word. Geddit?

Either give a rational, evidence based explanation for the existence of your God, or stop asking for the same regarding what exists in nature without your God.

There is much about nature and reality we do not yet understand, that's true. But luckily we now have a true and tested method for slowly chipping away at these questions. Beliefs without evidence are rejected, for good reason. The mystics and the theists and the prophets and the seers have had thousands of years to present their case. to show their evidence and have provided no answers at all. Therefore it is rational and reasonable to assume they have none.

*** I have asked you the question 3 times now. If you do not at least attempt an answer, with repeatable, testable evidence, then please don't bother replying because I have no intention of wasting my valuable time on this flimflam further.

Regards

Dear Hedshaker,

Well then, you tell me. Who made nature?? Who made reality? If you have a viable answer, hit me with it.

Michael

:wave2: :thumb:

 

[Hedshaker]

Michael, I'm sorry about your health issues and hope everything works out for you. Good luck.


However, I must take a break from reading your infantile, and mind numbingly stupid posts. You are clueless regarding arguments that oppose your position..... and reading the same old, yes he is no it isn't you'll see soon, comments really starts to grate after a while.

Sorry Michael but I award myself a rest from it. You are temporarily on ignore.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, I'm sorry about your health issues and hope everything works out for you. Good luck.


However, I must take a break from reading your infantile, and mind numbingly stupid posts. You are clueless regarding arguments that oppose your position..... and reading the same old, yes he is no it isn't you'll see soon, comments really starts to grate after a while.

Sorry Michael but I award myself a rest from it. You are temporarily on ignore.

Dear Hedshaker,

Give it a few weeks. Don't know, eh? I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I see you don't have much of an answer to these previous posts. Isn't that unusual. I hope that something good happens for you 2morrow to make your day. I really do, or I wouldn't say it.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

Where you see your name in Post #12826, that was Interplanner saying the things in the post, not me. You know I didn't say them. We both know everything we've said to each other. You can go a few threads back and find out for yourself. I think I'm going to call it a day! I don't need all of this b/s, tbh. I'll chat with you later, Al, once you get to go back and check out what all of this means and who said what.

Best Regards & Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

And where is the tested evidence about the 1st hummingbird? The evidence is they are here and it worked since day 1. There was no adapting or developing. Hard to believe you're a champion of testable evidence.

Darwinian evolution is the generally accepted best scientific explanation there is, it can only ever be falsified by evidence not formally proven.
So far, all the evidence found concurs with and can be explained by the ToE.
Not having any specific evidence for specific life forms does not therefore mean that said life form had to have been magically created as it is, it only means that evidence is lacking.
There is no reason I'm aware of to suppose that hummingbirds didn't evolve from earlier forms.

That's very nice about theories, and what do you do when the precise settings for life on earth of about 20 features from gravity to radiation to UV light have to be 'Goldilocks' for mankind the first day he shows up? Have you seen some of the 000s on these? Just one individual factor will have an improbability of more 000s than I can show in this window. Integrated together! So much for testable evidence! You had to be there the first day it all 'went live.'

Life only exists where it can, find evidence that anything is ever magically created complete and fully formed including its environment, only then perhaps can we stop expecting that only rational natural explanations will do.
Signs so far are however that all modern life has gradually evolved from an earlier form by means of natural selection.

This is why we who believe in creation (not specifying young or old) say that, if faith is defined as some degree of leaping against reason, there is quite a bit of faith going on in the evolutionary scheme!

I'm referring to the doc by Gonzalez and Richards, THE PRIVILEGED PLANET. They also helped Stroebel on A CASE FOR A CREATOR.

But having faith in a theory or not isn't the point, I don't put my faith in the ToE other than I do presume that it is reliable for all life regardless of the amounts of specific evidence available. If a better naturalistic theory did came along then fine, let's put it to the test against the evidence.
But OK, if faith is the right word then yes I do at least trust that all modern life can be explained by the ToE, and that Darwinian evolution is for me anyway a solid fact.

 

[Hedshaker]

Just to keep things clear, HedS, I'm speaking on the presupposition that there is. There's no point in evaluating the Bible unless you realize that is its base; and yet here you are trying to talk to it as though it did not have this base. The Bible would never bother claiming what it does on any other basis.

I hope by saying that that you will see you have one as well. You've been told that it is merely data, that natural data is the only thing out there, but now I hope you will see that there is also a presupposition driving it, and that that gets examined, just as you are examining mine.

When the account of the rescue of a British division at Mons, France, in WW1 by angels was told, skeptics said it was mass hallucination. But we know "that spontaneous unanimity in hallucination is very improbable..." --Lewis "Miracles". "The supernatural explanation is the less improbable of the two." Hallucination by several soldiers as a group is also very improbable.

Since we can't repeat origins, we must decide between probabilities.

Please stop posting dribble and stick to the point. Either answer the question asked of you or stop demanding the same of others regarding the existence of nature without your God, as if your moronic Rembrandt quote had any meaning.

If you cannot justify the existence of your God (with testable evidence) such as you would have others justify nature without your God then at least have the grace to admit it.

 

[Hedshaker]

F. Schaeffer did. He started from scratch as an agnostic in high school. He was simply honest enough to sit down and do a complete reading of the Bible.

P. Johnson, Stanford U.

_____. An Oxford professor who stopped denying intelligent design after debate with Behe and with Stephen Meier.

L. Stroebel. THE CASE FOR THE CREATOR. Former Chicago homicide investigator.

J. Wells. Molecular and cellular biology.

M. Behe. DARWIN'S BLACK BOX.

No, None of those people have received a Nobel prize. Not one, try again.

And it has to be said, outside your circle Lee Strobel and Behe are not looked upon very favourably at all.

The Case Against Lee Strobel

Watch this video how Lawrence Krauss demolishes Behe's nonsense and intelligent design.

Behe the idiot

 

[Interplanner]

Please stop posting dribble and stick to the point. Either answer the question asked of you or stop demanding the same of others regarding the existence of nature without your God, as if your moronic Rembrandt quote had any meaning.

If you cannot justify the existence of your God (with testable evidence) such as you would have others justify nature without your God then at least have the grace to admit it.

I don't understand the role of testable evidence here when I've never heard of anyone trying to repeat the origin of life, or of performing everything that happened once life was there.

You sound very rattled, but I guess that's to be expected. I mean like Dawkins. Infinite is just not enough.

What I'm saying is that Genesis' account is the capture of evidence, in my view. The last I checked everything that 'worked' or 'functioned' there still does work, which is a form of evidence.

 

[Interplanner]

Please stop posting dribble and stick to the point. Either answer the question asked of you or stop demanding the same of others regarding the existence of nature without your God, as if your moronic Rembrandt quote had any meaning.

If you cannot justify the existence of your God (with testable evidence) such as you would have others justify nature without your God then at least have the grace to admit it.

I don't know how it could get any more meaningful than to use the analogy of the Rembrandt. I praise the Creator not the paint. What else is there to talk about? Don't you notice your control of terms like 'meaning' or 'rational' or even 'justify'? You think, anyway, that you have total control.

 

[Interplanner]

No, None of those people have received a Nobel prize. Not one, try again.

And it has to be said, outside your circle Lee Strobel and Behe are not looked upon very favourably at all.

The Case Against Lee Strobel

Watch this video how Lawrence Krauss demolishes Behe's nonsense and intelligent design.

Behe the idiot

Obama got a Nobel before he was in office, where he was worthless. He was worthless before that. He just went to Alaska and made worthless remarks about the ice, that basic middle school logic can undo. He is clobbering my grandchildren with debt. He luvs Iran. That's what a Nobel gets you.

I thought the question was: has anyone shown the logical connection between an infinite-personal-intelligent Creator and the newer micro-biology discoveries? They did and it was hated because it is very difficult to accept the existence of such, as you know. This is why our universities are very closed-minded places. http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Does-Free-Speech-Offend-You.html#.Ve7iWvTPcQd

 

[Hedshaker]

Today Hedshaker raised the objection of God having no purpose to his existence and no cause of it. Here are some lines from Lewis' "Dogma and the Universe":

No that is not what I have said and anyone can read my posts and check for them selves. My objection has been about you demanding an explanation for nature without your God, but then keeping deafeningly quite when asked the exact same question regarding your God. That's what I have said and you should have the honesty and good grace to refrain from adding your own rendition of what I have actually said. It may be much easier for you to knock down your own straw man but it doesn't show you in a good light.

We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to his interests. We would not do so even for a man whom we knew to be greater than ourselves. The doctrines that God is love and that He delights in men are positive doctrines, not limiting doctrines. He is not less than this. What more He may be, we do not know; we know only that He must be more than we can conceive. It is to be expected that His creation should be, in the main, unintelligible to us.

Nonsense, irrelevant drivel. :dunce: Stick to the point. Put up or shut up.

No one knows anything about the original, pre Big Bang, cause of the universe. Not me, not you, not 6days, not anyone.

Claiming your God did it is nothing more than a God-of-the-gaps argument. If you think differently then show us the cause of your God. No more drivel, just answer the question or leave it.

 

[Hedshaker]

I don't understand the role of testable evidence here when I've never heard of anyone trying to repeat the origin of life, or of performing everything that happened once life was there.

Because you are talking about unknowns and then claiming your God did it. Prove it or accept it is just another religious belief, nothjng more.

You sound very rattled, but I guess that's to be expected. I mean like Dawkins. Infinite is just not enough.

It's your ducking, dodging and weaving that rattlers. This is not about Dawkins or Infinities. It is about you being honest enough to address the point ans stop with the irrelevant drivel.

What I'm saying is that Genesis' account is the capture of evidence, in my view. The last I checked everything that 'worked' or 'functioned' there still does work, which is a form of evidence.

No, no no! This is ridiculous. You are trying to convince me that stories in an ancient, pre science, holy book is evidence for how origins occurred?

Please explain then why mainstream science rejects Genesis as an explanation.

 

[Interplanner]

Darwinian evolution is the generally accepted best scientific explanation there is, it can only ever be falsified by evidence not formally proven.
So far, all the evidence found concurs with and can be explained by the ToE.
Not having any specific evidence for specific life forms does not therefore mean that said life form had to have been magically created as it is, it only means that evidence is lacking.
There is no reason I'm aware of to suppose that hummingbirds didn't evolve from earlier forms.

Life only exists where it can, find evidence that anything is ever magically created complete and fully formed including its environment, only then perhaps can we stop expecting that only rational natural explanations will do.
Signs so far are however that all modern life has gradually evolved from an earlier form by means of natural selection.

But having faith in a theory or not isn't the point, I don't put my faith in the ToE other than I do presume that it is reliable for all life regardless of the amounts of specific evidence available. If a better naturalistic theory did came along then fine, let's put it to the test against the evidence.
But OK, if faith is the right word then yes I do at least trust that all modern life can be explained by the ToE, and that Darwinian evolution is for me anyway a solid fact.

Just to tidy up a bit, I don't know that ToE dares to be cosmological, which is the realm of this thread. Is it your understanding that it explains origins, including any philosophical questions that arise? Or are you just referring to a later process once everything is up and running?

What thinking person is only going to test naturalistic theories? When people gave up on Greek gods it was because they had too many human faults. They never worked as an ultimate explanation. But Ovid also said that naturalism does not explain life or that life was hideously meaningless upon that basis. So people have given up on both of them because of faults or because there was no meaning to life after all. That does not mean that they give up on God if he provides answers about both of those things.

These questions are perennial. You can't just confine yourself to those which are answered in a naturalistic, closed universe.

 

[Hedshaker]

Obama got a Nobel before he was in office, where he was worthless. He was worthless before that. He just went to Alaska and made worthless remarks about the ice, that basic middle school logic can undo. He is clobbering my grandchildren with debt. He luvs Iran. That's what a Nobel gets you.

I thought the question was: has anyone shown the logical connection between an infinite-personal-intelligent Creator and the newer micro-biology discoveries? They did and it was hated because it is very difficult to accept the existence of such, as you know. This is why our universities are very closed-minded places. http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Does-Free-Speech-Offend-You.html#.Ve7iWvTPcQd

That's it. I'm obviously dealing with a half wit.

Please take a little time to watch the video. I doubt it but you just might learn something:

Dunning Krugar

Please watch it.

 

[Hedshaker]

I praise the Creator not the paint.

How many more times!!!!!! You don't have a creator you have a belief in a creator. It's the BELIEF that you worship.

You just assume your creator because you have convinced your self that it must be the explanation for everything. And by shear chance, it just happens to be the very same God that you already believe in. What luck........ :first:

No one has to justify nature to you until you can justify your god to them. What is unknown is unknown. It's that simple!