Creation vs. Evolution

[Caino]

Science does a lot more than that, while religion offers no real meaning to my life, only simplistic and sometimes harmful platitudes.

Science doesn't carry you beyond the grave, it just observes what already exists. Science doesn't create what it observes, it try's to explain what is already created.

 

[Caino]

Destroying superstition is a good thing. But when superstition is removed from religion, I find little good left that religion offers that can’t be derived equally well outside of religion.

Well, if you ever do discover the good God of religion then you will abandon the pursuit of all else for the pearl of great price.

 

[gcthomas]

Science doesn't carry you beyond the grave, it just observes what already exists. Science doesn't create what it observes, it try's to explain what is already created.

Science has only explained microprocessors, nuclear bombs and genetic engineering. OK. But if science didn't create them, what did?

 

[Stuu]

True, though I conceded that some scientists just need to keep working at what they are doing. Example: I DO think we can do better than Chemo and radiation (In Seattle, they think they finally have a pill that will cure one particular childhood cancer).

A researcher might come up with the idea that a particular substance can act against cancer cells. That researcher's job is to do what they can to prove it's not. If there is evidence that the cancer cells continue to be affected after every other possible causal factor has been eliminated (for example some impurity in the drug preparation that is actually having the effect) then you could call that a theory of cancer treatment. That's what I mean by trying to disprove the idea. Once you have the initial idea, you do everything you can to disprove it.

If only I could get you to apply that to your atheism, could systematically crush it. It is untenable. I know that God exists. I 'believe' He is the Christian God but that isn't necessary to get the concession.

That statement hinges on your understanding of the word know. My understanding of the word know is that I can know facts, where the denial of those facts would be perverse given the evidence. It is not perverse to say there are no gods, except in the imaginations of believers in them. There is no unambiguous evidence whatsoever for gods.

But let's go to the level of knowing from gut instinct. Nothing I have ever seen about the universe tells me I should conclude there is some kind of supermind in operation. I get exactly the opposite gut instinct. If you read Genesis 1, replacing the word God with the word gravity, it makes slightly more sense. Of course the verses in which gravity names things don't make sense, but at least it doesn't make less sense than the original!

Gen 1:1 In the beginning, gravity created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of gravity was hovering over the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 And gravity said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And gravity saw that the light was good. And gravity separated the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 gravity called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
Gen 1:6 And gravity said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Gen 1:7 And gravity made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
Gen 1:8 And gravity called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
Gen 1:9 And gravity said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Gen 1:10 gravity called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And gravity saw that it was good.
Gen 1:11 And gravity said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Gen 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And gravity saw that it was good.
Gen 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Yes. I lived in a logging camp in Alaska at one time. I realize you are talking about 'undoing' principles here, but I think once it isn't relevant, it doesn't matter. I mean, who cares 'if' I'm choosing to live by candles and lanterns? Relevancy is an important factor. I'm not sure the Amish need to teach electricity on the farm. It just isn't a need.

The Amish are a really interesting example, because the ones whose job is sharpening agricultural blades do use electricity, and if an ambulance is needed they will use a telephone belonging to a non-Amish neighbour. I think they have decided that modern technology is useful but they are slow to introduce it directly into the community because of their fear of its effects on their way of life, which is very community-oriented. In some ways this is very backward but in other ways it is very smart (and very repressive too). So I would think that they of all people are motivated to really understand electricity, and not just as a theory of electrons moving in a wire, but as a whole theory of social change too. Of course I don't believe they all get that education... education tends to have the disadvantage of freeing people.

Even the atheist should steer from 'apes' language. If what we 'were' (for the Darwinist and or atheist) it is insignificant in light of holding your child in your arms, valuing and experiencing love.

The differences between bonobos and chimpanzees that arose when the original population was split by the arising of the Congo river have happened because of the food supply for each group on each side, and the way that they had to carry their young when searching for food. Bonobos are much more cooperative and chimpanzees are much more competitive, partly as a result of that difference. Humans are much more like chimpanzees than bonobos. So I hope you see that knowledge of how our closest cousin species have evolved shines light on what it is to be a modern human. Make no mistake. We are apes. Ask Carl Linneaus, the creationist who first categorised us as such.

It is supernatural, however else you want to see it. If not, love is a shallow thing for that one and sadly. Love is incredibly more and beyond the grave. I 'still' love my father. I have his ashes. It'd be nice if an atheist would change his/her moniker. It is such a purposefully antagonistic and confrontational moniker. Even if you don't agree, note that that is the conveyance. It is a hateful thing and I don't value rebellion or hate. They are completely opposite of love and meaning.

I don't particularly like the word atheist. I am all sorts of other things, but the word atheist defines me in terms of others' imaginary friends. That is why my profile has never shown that word. But I am unquestionably an atheist and not embarrassed about it. Do you actually know any atheists as personal friends?

It is yet good, as far as science is concerned to talk about it. While it doesn't seem we do much, I do think there are ripple effects, depending how big the splash. That too is a fodder for scientific investigation. I "think" Jose is right that sometimes it serves as coffee-table and lunch-table discussion. I try to get out a bit more these days and actually carry the conversation outside cyber walls. -Lon

Evolution by natural selection is the central organising principle of all biology, and because it explains how complexity can arise by natural processes it is an important principle in many other fields too.
Without evolution, biology is (as Rutherford would have called it) stamp collecting.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Science has only explained microprocessors, nuclear bombs and genetic engineering. OK. But if science didn't create them, what did?

Scientific minds created by mind, created those things using preexisting materials and energies created by the same master mind.

 

[gcthomas]

Scientific minds created by mind, created those things using preexisting materials and energies created by the same master mind.

So nothing is created by science then, by your definition? Odd thing to say, Caino.

 

[Caino]

So nothing is created by science then, by your definition? Odd thing to say, Caino.

Of coarse science can make things, create machines and stuff out of preexisting materials, but my point is that science for instance didn't create evolution of life, it is simply observing the facts of the evolution of life which are present in the archeological layers. And the things that inventors use to create stuff with are governed by preexisting laws of the universe which we of religion see as the laws of God.

 

[gcthomas]

Of coarse science can make things, create machines and stuff out of preexisting materials, but my point is that science for instance didn't create evolution of life, it is simply observing the facts of the evolution of life which are present in the archeological layers. And the things that inventors use to create stuff with are governed by preexisting laws of the universe which we of religion see as the laws of God.

So when you said science has created nothing, what you really meant was scientists haven't created any universes or changed the laws by which the universe operates?

Sorry, I hadn't expected your earlier comment to be so blindingly obvious and trivial. I read to much into it.

 

[Lon]

Science does a lot more than that, while religion offers no real meaning to my life, only simplistic and sometimes harmful platitudes.

This is because you are stuck in a caricature of thinking, and hiding behind simply one (1) discipline within college. There is a reason Hawking said Philosophy is dead: He is inept. Is that odd to say about a guy with a brilliant IQ? Yes, but he was brain-dead to say what he said. He is cutting off half of his world to say such a stupid thing. Don't make the same mistake. Science is NOT all there is. It is a secondary add-on to life, in point of fact. Life is about family, love, friends and science plays an assessorie part. Hiding behind it for all truth is an abuse of what it actually 'can' do. It can't do that for you or anybody.

 

[Lon]

Destroying superstition is a good thing. But when superstition is removed from religion, I find little good left that religion offers that can’t be derived equally well outside of religion.

Superstition, while not preferred rarely kills anyone. I'm not going to avoid the doctor or playing with snakes. I don't tend to be superstitious at all and actually see more superstition in scientists playing the Lottery. Do I agree that you find little good from religion? Yep. Man can live a long but ultimately meaningless life without the God of the universe. Kids can run away from home too. lain:

The rest of us KNOW what you are missing. Ignorance is nothing to applaud or herald. Science can ONLY take you so far before it too provides for unfounded and unfoundable superstition that likewise can and does hurt.

I love science observation. Science speculation and erroneous conclusion? Not so much. Again, it can and does hurt.

 

[Lon]

A researcher might come up with the idea that a particular substance can act against cancer cells. That researcher's job is to do what they can to prove it's not. If there is evidence that the cancer cells continue to be affected after every other possible causal factor has been eliminated (for example some impurity in the drug preparation that is actually having the effect) then you could call that a theory of cancer treatment. That's what I mean by trying to disprove the idea. Once you have the initial idea, you do everything you can to disprove it.

Again, agree. This is part of the scientific process and must be.

That statement hinges on your understanding of the word know. My understanding of the word know is that I can know facts, where the denial of those facts would be perverse given the evidence. It is not perverse to say there are no gods, except in the imaginations of believers in them. There is no unambiguous evidence whatsoever for gods.

The problem with life is that while it isn't repeatable, it is seldom question or scrutinized. My father and step father are ashes now. There is no proof, whatsoever, that I ever had a father. You can't find it. There is no 'reason' to doubt. Likewise, I genuinely believe there is no 'reason' to doubt God. If I could say anything about experience and interaction that you could believe (providing such a hurdle could exist), then there likewise would be no 'reason' to doubt. In a nutshell atheism is an affront because it doubts the veracity of things 98 percent of the rest of us have seen and/or believe (I'm not sure how many have seen, I have, but I don't think it matters, either to those who haven't seen or to the atheist because their response is willful at that point). Apply this to your first statement: Denial of facts, is indeed perverse. There is no 'reason' to deny my facts. No atheist ever probes, he/she doesn't want a 'reasonable' denial - again, imo, that is indeed perverse. If I were an atheist, my constitution is such that I would have to investigate. I couldn't be an atheist in all good conscious otherwise, and that would bother me, I'd be settling for an inconsistency and only for the convenience of my preference. I could never live with that.

But let's go to the level of knowing from gut instinct. Nothing I have ever seen about the universe tells me I should conclude there is some kind of supermind in operation.

I get exactly the opposite gut instinct. If you read Genesis 1, replacing the word God with the word gravity, it makes slightly more sense. Of course the verses in which gravity names things don't make sense, but at least it doesn't make less sense than the original!

Try "Big Bang" instead. Inserting an absurd word makes no 'logical' sense. I'd hope you and I would always wonder at things that don't make sense. So use a word and expression you buy into. If you are to be an atheist, it should be logical and tenable. I don't believe atheism ever is.

The Amish are a really interesting example, because the ones whose job is sharpening agricultural blades do use electricity, and if an ambulance is needed they will use a telephone belonging to a non-Amish neighbour. I think they have decided that modern technology is useful but they are slow to introduce it directly into the community because of their fear of its effects on their way of life, which is very community-oriented. In some ways this is very backward but in other ways it is very smart (and very repressive too). So I would think that they of all people are motivated to really understand electricity, and not just as a theory of electrons moving in a wire, but as a whole theory of social change too. Of course I don't believe they all get that education... education tends to have the disadvantage of freeing people.

They aren't really wanting to slowly accept. They still don't use buttons. Their way of life isn't superstition at that point. They aren't avoiding electricity because it is evil, but because it doesn't support their values. They are trying to live an isolated life. For me, it wouldn't work unless I was trying to get others to enjoin that kind of life because the point of mine is to involve others with the life of Jesus Christ. That's a bit harder to do in isolation, but I think such is somewhat in my nature. I lived in Alaska for several years. It is an isolated life-style. I'd have a hard time being a New Yorker.

The differences between bonobos and chimpanzees that arose when the original population was split by the arising of the Congo river have happened because of the food supply for each group on each side, and the way that they had to carry their young when searching for food. Bonobos are much more cooperative and chimpanzees are much more competitive, partly as a result of that difference. Humans are much more like chimpanzees than bonobos. So I hope you see that knowledge of how our closest cousin species have evolved shines light on what it is to be a modern human. Make no mistake. We are apes. Ask Carl Linneaus, the creationist who first categorised us as such.

Again, I think what a male lion does with its rival cubs is detestable, good for the lion, bad for humanity. It doesn't matter how much have in common with a lion, my values are against that. I am against much that an ape does, so it will ever be an insult to compare me to or call me one, even if I thought I came from one. I don't buy common descent/ascent. Science can maintain a commonality, I have a cell like a houseplant afterall, there is no denying similarity or commonality. Just because a building is made of Legos, doesn't mean it came from a Star Wars Lego set.

I don't particularly like the word atheist. I am all sorts of other things, but the word atheist defines me in terms of others' imaginary friends. That is why my profile has never shown that word. But I am unquestionably an atheist and not embarrassed about it. Do you actually know any atheists as personal friends?

Family even. I have not told him my IQ is higher than his yet...
*(I won't, I think that God, as an actual being and being involved in the universe, must make Himself known, I'm not always happy, but happy to see answered prayer, to me, it is the ultimate scientific inquiry. God says, literally, if you seek Him earnestly, you WILL find Him, some have actually taken Him up on the challenge and it is scientific inquiry, at least in following it)

Evolution by natural selection is the central organising principle of all biology, and because it explains how complexity can arise by natural processes it is an important principle in many other fields too.
Without evolution, biology is (as Rutherford would have called it) stamp collecting.

I disagree. As with the Lego example, I think at times science simply draws false or bad conclusion 'among' the good. By example, the only thing most Christians are arguing is that all these Legos came from a Star Wars set (Evolution or more precisely, Darwinian common-descent).

 

[DavisBJ]

Superstition, while not preferred rarely kills anyone.

Yet superstition today plays an immense role in our lives. There are literally billions of people who are addicted to it, even though it comes draped in priestly robes and carrying ancient tomes filled with fantasy stories about talking snakes and ladies transforming into salt.

I don't tend to be superstitious at all and actually see more superstition in scientists playing the Lottery.

I certainly hope scientists are rational enough to know that the lottery, like religion, panders to people’s desires for a quick solution to problems they face.

Man can live a long but ultimately meaningless life without the God of the universe.

And man can live a long and meaningful life without the narcotic effect of believing in some divine God-figure.

The rest of us KNOW what you are missing.

Since I spent years on your side of the fence, I too know what I am now missing. The withdrawal can be painful, but well worth it once the addiction is gone.

Ignorance is nothing to applaud or herald.

You mean ignorance about how the physical world really operates? No rivers turning to blood, no decaying dead bodies coming back to life, no animals talking in human voices?

Science can ONLY take you so far before it too provides for unfounded and unfoundable superstition that likewise can and does hurt.

But science, in the span of just a couple centuries, has taken us vastly farther than all religions did in all of human history. Do you want to dismiss the most successful way of advancing that man has ever known?

I love science observation. Science speculation and erroneous conclusion?

That’s good, then you too see how much of what is euphemistically called “God’s Word” is laced with error.

 

[6days]

Science IS consistent with Biblical creation.

I know a lot of good Christians who maintain that the old earth and ideas of evolution are indeed the way in which God created and populated the earth.

Ok??? So, they compromise in scripture? Science IS consistent with Biblical creation

A week or so ago I posted two papers from geological groups that disagree with creationism.

I'm SOooooo surprised!!

Not only do the scientists in academia disagree with creationism

Bible believing scientists in academia say that science is consistent with God's Word.

A small minority.

So, you agree that your original statement could have been worded better?

And, a few days ago you posted a long reply to show...

…Here are a few answers as to why theistic evolution and long ages contradicts scripture.
…
At least the young-earth creationists are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.

You appear to be speaking with a forked tongue, arguing that science supports your ideas, yet claiming that YECs “are consistent, for they embrace supernatural causation across the board.”

No Kemo Sabee... You speak with forked tongue. That is part of a quote from an atheist showing how theistic evolutionists have an inconsistent belief system.

 

[patrick jane]

DavisBJ, science is certainly the best tool for advancement but you can't honestly believe that all of this just happened this way. The Hand of God is visible in all things living and dead. We have a creator

 

[DavisBJ]

DavisBJ, science is certainly the best tool for advancement but you can't honestly believe that all of this just happened this way.

Science examines the world to see if indeed “all of this just happened this way.” Science has shown that for many things once attributed to God, in fact it was our ignorance of physical laws that was at fault. Certainly there are things that we will never have the exact answer on – like just where on the earth did the first “living cell” originate. But the best way to stop progress in understanding is to declare “God poofed it into existence.”

The Hand of God is visible in all things living and dead. We have a creator

I look at the same world you do. We each appreciate the beauty of a rainbow, but you probably see the hand of God in the rainbow, whereas I see Maxwell’s equations explaining how various frequencies of light separate as they reflect within microscopic spherical water droplets.

 

[patrick jane]

Science examines the world to see if indeed “all of this just happened this way.” Science has shown that for many things once attributed to God, in fact it was our ignorance of physical laws that was at fault. Certainly there are things that we will never have the exact answer on – like just where on the earth did the first “living cell” originate. But the best way to stop progress in understanding is to declare “God poofed it into existence.”

I look at the same world you do. We each appreciate the beauty of a rainbow, but you probably see the hand of God in the rainbow, whereas I see Maxwell’s equations explaining how various frequencies of light separate as they reflect within microscopic spherical water droplets.

I suppose if I lived in a 3rd world country I wouldn't have such a rosy view of life. I don't see a rainbow and think of God though, I see the same Maxwell's. But the pot of gold is real

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you are pretty much on schedule. It has been a couple months since you last unloaded on me, but all is back to normal now.

On the volcano issue, all you would have needed to do was spend a minute or so on the internet to come up with the same information I did. But no, your style is to spout off on things you know nothing about, and then get irate when corrected.


Your self-perception as a prophet seems to be pretty important to you. Probably an innocent fantasy that you like to immerse yourself in. But, if Moses, or any of the Biblical prophets, to prove their gift of prophecy, had told me that they correctly predicted the depth of a snowfall, then I would probably burst out laughing. I have seen stage magicians do things that were far more impressive than that. As a prophet, you are just a dim shadow next to your mentor, Uri Geller.

Dear Davis,

I think of myself as a Witness for God. You like to trivialize God's miracle that He did for me. The Lord told me two days before the day it even snowed that He would send 7 inches of snow upon the reporter's newspaper building. You WISH you could have the same help. What will God do for you? Yeah, that's what I thought! If you want to be friends, then act like one.

Michael

 

[Lon]

Fair warning, I'm going to call a lot of your thought processes into question here:

Yet superstition today plays an immense role in our lives. There are literally billions of people who are addicted to it, even though it comes draped in priestly robes and carrying ancient tomes filled with fantasy stories about talking snakes and ladies transforming into salt.

Look, there are liberal Christians, and they are born-again Christians, that believe the conveyance is the point, not necessarily that it is meant to be a literal conveyance. I am not at all one of those liberals, but I'm saying I'm not buying your whole-sale rejection. It is an excuse, nothing less. Sorry, you don't 'want' it and that's about as juvenile and ego-centric as it gets. As far as intelligence goes, I do not believe atheism is logical, intelligent, or honest. It is literally saying whatever I have to say, you disbelieve it. In effect, you are calling me a liar just for the heck of it, and by that I mean for no good 'reason.' It is anti-intellectual. I don't care what fancy dance an atheist tries to make after this point, they are all coping mechanisms. I know God exists and that really is the end of the story against an inane atheist assertion because frankly, you are 'just' being inane and shallow. "If" I were an atheist, I'd be 1) a LOT more honest without hiding behind blind assertions and 2) I'd still be honest, I'd sure as heck ask someone like me why they are so sure and I'd be a better scientist and try to actually find out. Bottom line? You simply "Don't want to." Own that, it has nothing to do with honesty or veracity and, in fact, is very much against it.

I certainly hope scientists are rational enough to know that the lottery, like religion, panders to people’s desires for a quick solution to problems they face.

I certainly don't play.

And man can live a long and meaningful life without the narcotic effect of believing in some divine God-figure.

This says a lot about you, while you were yet in the arena of at least a potentially-Christian circle. You and possibly they, were dead. Of course you don't think you need what you were born without. I'd simply tell the one-armed man that he doesn't know what he is missing as he continues to reject the enrichment. Christianity is more than an enrichment, it is love. People without families raised in orphanages might not know what it is like, but they aren't closed to wanting an adoptive family. Something odd exists in the atheist that this is his/her preference. Put another way: If I were an atheist, and found out there 'might' be a Creator being in the universe, I'd want to know Him, not doubt Him. That never (ever) makes logical sense. Again, atheism is just untenable on so many levels. It is counter everything, including intelligence, but not limited. It is a shallow individual that would even 'want' to embrace such a dismal closure to possibility. It is bad enough that you don't want to seek such a thing out. That's not even good science or a good scientific mind, let alone poor inquiry and discovery. It really is just stagnant indoctrination and settling for the shallow. Why? To protect something, whatever it is. I posit whatever that thing is, it is unworthy of such close-minded protection. Atheism is close-minded. It is even anti-science.

Since I spent years on your side of the fence, I too know what I am now missing. The withdrawal can be painful, but well worth it once the addiction is gone.

:nono: You were a passenger, and on-looker. You weren't a participant, couldn't have been. Why? Because you never really listened to my story or any other's about why they know beyond doubts of reason, that God exists.

You mean ignorance about how the physical world really operates? No rivers turning to blood, no decaying dead bodies coming back to life, no animals talking in human voices?

:doh: EVEN scientists are trying to figure out 'how' to do this you knucklehead. Again, some liberals doubt this too, but take the heart of the story and live as if it is central whether the thing happened or not. Story and history, always serve this function, it is why we have fiction and nonfiction in our libraries. You'd lambast a person for wanting to believe in Santa Claus, even if they were only 8 :noway: I never did teach my kids Santa exists, but the story is okay. It teaches something about love and wonder. It is 'okay' for kids to believe in Santa because it teaches love and giving as well as provides wonder to a child. Developmentally, make-believe is 'necessary,' I've learned from my developmental classes, for a child's growth and critical thinking. "What if" is make-believe. We could not have gone to the moon without it. The atheist, literally turns off this portion of his brain. He not only shuns religion, he shuns scientific inquiry as well. Again, I assert: No atheist ever did but a cursory job of asking me why I so adamantly believe. They'd likely come to believe, so I can understand why, but this isn't honesty. This is simply 'happy where I am' and settling. Truth demands more of us and this person is lazy or happy in addiction that isn't good for him/her.

But science, in the span of just a couple centuries, has taken us vastly farther than all religions did in all of human history. Do you want to dismiss the most successful way of advancing that man has ever known?

Well, yes, men and women live for their computers and cell-phones BUT I'm not sure I'd call that advancement. Technology serves mankind, mankind does not serve technology. It is supposed to be the same with Government. I disagreed with Kennedy, I do ask what my government can do for me, but that is 'why' it exists and I pay for it. When it stops doing that, I'd like to put my resources somewhere where it will actually serve community. It is the same with science. If it serves man, great. If it demands I serve it, no dice. I live for love, family, friends, and community, to benefit man. Science plays a 'supporting' role ONLY.

That’s good, then you too see how much of what is euphemistically called “God’s Word” is laced with error.

:nono: Science can and is done by everybody. It is simply trying to figure out how to harvest the grain and keep myself healthy while I harvest it. That's all science is. All the bells and whistles will never change that. I'm all for curiosity and how things work. The sad thing is science pushes religion away (and likely vise versa). A good scientist would likely prod me relentlessly as to why I know there is a God.

Atheist don't 'want' to know and sadly, even some scientist who should know better, don't want to know. They are happy where they are, in ignorance, and excusing behavior of platitudes and confirmation bias as you've displayed here. I am not trying to convince you there is a God, I'm trying to tell show you that you don't care. You are an atheist, so of course you already know that, but as I said too, I don't think it tenable, just the desire you have, regardless of truth.

 

[DavisBJ]

Are Friends for dumping on?

Are Friends for dumping on?

Dear Davis,

I think of myself as a Witness for God. You like to trivialize God's miracle that He did for me. The Lord told me two days before the day it even snowed that He would send 7 inches of snow upon the reporter's newspaper building. You WISH you could have the same help.

If God told me two days beforehand that there would be 7 inches of snow, I would be a bit concerned. “Uhh, that’s it, God? 7 inches of snow? No fire and brimstone, or parting of an ocean, or flying chariots? What am I, chopped liver? Well, OK, if you say so. But I do have just a couple more questions. You know the TV weatherman last nite said 6 to 9 inches, so You really think this is a good idea? And please, no wind. You know, when there is just a bit of wind with snow then it tends to pile up on the windward side, and to be a bit shallow on the lee side. Which side do you want me to tell the reporter to take the measurement on?”

What will God do for you?

Probably about as much as Elrond and Galadriel did for me

If you want to be friends, then act like one.

But you make it so darn hard. Over a year ago I warned you away from making silly prophecies about the rapture before the end of last year, but no, not you. You forged right ahead and made a fool of yourself anyway, and then shifted the blame on us for your screw-up. Some friend you are.

But, like a friend, I will persevere and hope that someday you will actually listen to advice from someone other than your imaginary playmates.

 

[Stuu]

Likewise, I genuinely believe there is no 'reason' to doubt God. If I could say anything about experience and interaction that you could believe (providing such a hurdle could exist), then there likewise would be no 'reason' to doubt.

So what reason do you have to doubt the existence of Bertrand Russell's teapot, orbiting the sun just out of sight?

In a nutshell atheism is an affront because it doubts the veracity of things 98 percent of the rest of us have seen and/or believe

So 98% are deluded. So what? That's not the rate of god belief in the population, of course, in fact it's not even close to the rate of god belief in most christian denominations. 13% of Church of England vicars are atheists.

(I'm not sure how many have seen, I have, but I don't think it matters, either to those who haven't seen or to the atheist because their response is willful at that point). Apply this to your first statement: Denial of facts, is indeed perverse. There is no 'reason' to deny my facts.

So we each have different sets of facts, somehow, but by my definition of the word fact your facts concerning a conspiracy theory of gods running the universe don't stand up because they are not supported by unambiguous evidence, or indeed by any reason TO believe. Maybe we have different definitions of the word fact.

The reason to question your god beliefs is that the human brain is notorious for seeing patterns even when there aren't really any patterns. But the opposite behaviour is no way to survive on the African savannah. If you think you heard a sabre tooth and hide, then you survive whether there is a sabre tooth there or not.

No atheist ever probes, he/she doesn't want a 'reasonable' denial - again, imo, that is indeed perverse. If I were an atheist, my constitution is such that I would have to investigate. I couldn't be an atheist in all good conscious otherwise, and that would bother me, I'd be settling for an inconsistency and only for the convenience of my preference. I could never live with that.

Are you saying I haven't investigated? I think I have investigated circles around you.

Try "Big Bang" instead. Inserting an absurd word makes no 'logical' sense. I'd hope you and I would always wonder at things that don't make sense. So use a word and expression you buy into. If you are to be an atheist, it should be logical and tenable. I don't believe atheism ever is.

No, I think gravity works much better than Big Bang. It really is gravity that does all that sorting of the water and land, and indeed the matter that makes up the planets.

I'd have a hard time being a New Yorker.

From a brief trip to NYC I can believe that for myself too.

Again, I think what a male lion does with its rival cubs is detestable, good for the lion, bad for humanity. It doesn't matter how much have in common with a lion, my values are against that. I am against much that an ape does, so it will ever be an insult to compare me to or call me one, even if I thought I came from one.

Evolution by natural selection isn't a recommendation for an ethical system, it is an explanation for how the biological world works. It is a fact that human behaviours are adaptations that increase our fitness for survival and reproduction. The adaptations of a lion or chimpanzee would not work for humans, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from other species about how behavioural adaptation works.

I don't buy common descent/ascent. Science can maintain a commonality, I have a cell like a houseplant afterall, there is no denying similarity or commonality. Just because a building is made of Legos, doesn't mean it came from a Star Wars Lego set.

Your cells are a bit different to those of a plant, but they do indeed share a very ancient common ancestor. There is no denying common ancestry. Unless you want to be really perverse. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

I think that God, as an actual being and being involved in the universe, must make Himself known, I'm not always happy, but happy to see answered prayer, to me, it is the ultimate scientific inquiry. God says, literally, if you seek Him earnestly, you WILL find Him, some have actually taken Him up on the challenge and it is scientific inquiry, at least in following it)

But there's nothing there! Obviously! Talk about the emperor's new clothes.

I disagree. As with the Lego example, I think at times science simply draws false or bad conclusion 'among' the good. By example, the only thing most Christians are arguing is that all these Legos came from a Star Wars set (Evolution or more precisely, Darwinian common-descent).

I don't follow your analogy, sorry.

Stuart