Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[bhsmte]

First you have to know what an effective prayer is. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." If you want to fly an airplane then you have to use the right formula. If you want answer to prayer you have to know how to pray.

No evidence then, thanks.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course your tenancy toward projection is just a ego function in an attempt to cope by establishing defense mechanisms. There is no reason for you to tell on yourself by trying to project your neurosis out on me. There is no dissonance for me because there is no conflict between science and religion. They get along like two peas in a pod. Mendel's Genetics established this at the time of Darwin.

Does you're personal theology allow you to agree with the theory of evolution?

A simple yes or now will do and please refrain from discussing diet and behavior modifications.

 

[Phenotype]

Some of The Bible is history also, not just theology. There is some science like biology and botany. Genesis has 31 verses and there are hundreds of thousands of books that goes into detail about what we read in those 31 verses.

They all need to get recycled.

I burned 12 bibles, different versions. I didn't chuck them in the recycle bin as I didn't want them to fall into the wrong hands. Probably Sudanese refugees sort through the recycled stuff. They are not equipped with education. Then I wished I had kept at least one.

Then in a box in the shed I found my old leather bound Thompson Chain Reference in the lovely King James Version, with all the selected scriptures lovingly underlined. I have it as a reference. I still have my Young's Concordance. I was a Christian for 13 years. I ended up in the Wesleyan Methodist holiness scene. I studied theology. Then I went to uni and took Social Sciences. To get high distinctions, I had to demonstrate critical thinking. That killed religion for me.

 

[Phenotype]

No evidence then, thanks.

You are just increasing the loneliness of Calvary.

 

[Colter]

Creationism happened in a week, the first week ever. It was probably just before thanksgiving so as to allow time for shopping in the garden. The economy would have just been created to. The first deep discount sales were not long after. Then Cain married his sister and the first insest trial was held. It was a really busy year. But then God was disappointed in his creation so he drowned everyone except and ansestors of the Jews who, as it turns out, had a drinking problem even though he was the ONLY righteous man in all the world. So then I guess the Jewish holidays were created.

 

[Zosimus]

If it ain't substantive and empirically testable, most likely it is irrelevant.

How sad that you would say that.

I also wonder whether the claim "If it ain't substantive and empirically testable, most likely it is irrelevant" can be exposed to empirical testing. Personally, I doubt it. Accordingly, shouldn't we assume that your statement is most likely irrelevant according to its own standard?

You are woefully ignorant of the things you talk about. You need to read the book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. You can find it at http://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf

 

[joshua 1 9]

No evidence then, thanks.

No evidence when you put a paper bag over your head and say:
"I don't hear nothing", "I don't hear nothing", "I don't hear nothing".

 

[joshua 1 9]

I ended up in the Wesleyan Methodist holiness scene. I studied theology. Then I went to uni and took Social Sciences. To get high distinctions, I had to demonstrate critical thinking. That killed religion for me.

What you needed to do was be taught by the Holy Spirit of God not man. He can guide you and lead you into the truth.

 

[Zosimus]

Reality remains yet to be wholly explained. Science is ever providing a better description of reality.

I'm aware that this delusion is widely believed by the pro-science crowd. I wonder, however, whether it is empirically falsifiable. If not, surely you must think that it is unworthy of thinking.

And yet evolution has never been falsified. Richard Dawkins calls evolution a theorum, it is that sound. This is a new term he has coined. He also authored the insightful term meme, a cultural self replicator that rides in minds, brains. Religion is a meme. Some memes are benign, some are deleterious. You well know what I am alluding to.

Richard Dawkins is a complete moron. Have you read the book The God Delusion? Then you can clearly see for yourself that the man doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. You can find better philosophy etched on the bathroom walls of a truck stop anywhere in the U.S.

Regarding the anomalous procession of Mercury, Einstein realised that light and indeed space-time are bent by gravity. You should know this.

You are completely missing the point. Let's try another example. It is commonly theorized that the sun produces its power because of solar fusion. Yet this theory has had a problem since the beginning -- the number of neutrinos detected is far fewer than the number predicted by the models. Something is wrong, but what is that something? Does the sun not run on fusion? Are we unable to detect neutrinos? Is the theory of fusion wrong? The latest explanation is that neutrinos change flavor on their way from the Sun to the detectors on Earth. How anyone can know whether the neutrinos change flavor along the route without putting a detector somewhere in between the Earth and the Sun is beyond me. Yet that is the latest theory.

What we are seeing is the problem of holistic underdetermination.

 

[Phenotype]

I'm aware that this delusion is widely believed by the pro-science crowd. I wonder, however, whether it is empirically falsifiable. If not, surely you must think that it is unworthy of thinking.


Richard Dawkins is a complete moron. Have you read the book The God Delusion? Then you can clearly see for yourself that the man doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. You can find better philosophy etched on the bathroom walls of a truck stop anywhere in the U.S.


You are completely missing the point. Let's try another example. It is commonly theorized that the sun produces its power because of solar fusion. Yet this theory has had a problem since the beginning -- the number of neutrinos detected is far fewer than the number predicted by the models. Something is wrong, but what is that something? Does the sun not run on fusion? Are we unable to detect neutrinos? Is the theory of fusion wrong? The latest explanation is that neutrinos change flavor on their way from the Sun to the detectors on Earth. How anyone can know whether the neutrinos change flavor along the route without putting a detector somewhere in between the Earth and the Sun is beyond me. Yet that is the latest theory.

What we are seeing is the problem of holistic underdetermination.

You work it out Zosimus. The comment about R. Dawkins has left me decidedly disinclined to like you, or give a damn about where you are at.

America has a malaise. Nearly 400 million guns, evangelical Christianity, hyper patriotism, a totally retributive system of justice instead of rehabilitative, serious and widening disparity because of capitalism and the need for egalitarian policies to assist the racial underclass, and what are you doing about it but remaining a bigot?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You work it out Zosimus. The comment about R. Dawkins has left me decidedly disinclined to like you, or give a damn about where you are at.

America has a malaise. Nearly 400 million guns, evangelical Christianity, hyper patriotism, a totally retributive system of justice instead of rehabilitative, serious and widening disparity because of capitalism and the need for egalitarian policies to assist the racial underclass, and what are you doing about it but remaining a bigot?

Here ya go Phenotype...just so you can see what bigotry looks like.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm aware that this delusion is widely believed by the pro-science crowd. I wonder, however, whether it is empirically falsifiable. If not, surely you must think that it is unworthy of thinking.


Richard Dawkins is a complete moron. Have you read the book The God Delusion? Then you can clearly see for yourself that the man doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. You can find better philosophy etched on the bathroom walls of a truck stop anywhere in the U.S.


You are completely missing the point. Let's try another example. It is commonly theorized that the sun produces its power because of solar fusion. Yet this theory has had a problem since the beginning -- the number of neutrinos detected is far fewer than the number predicted by the models. Something is wrong, but what is that something? Does the sun not run on fusion? Are we unable to detect neutrinos? Is the theory of fusion wrong? The latest explanation is that neutrinos change flavor on their way from the Sun to the detectors on Earth. How anyone can know whether the neutrinos change flavor along the route without putting a detector somewhere in between the Earth and the Sun is beyond me. Yet that is the latest theory.

What we are seeing is the problem of holistic underdetermination.

Oh no Zosimus, you have offended Pheno now. You have belittled his god.

 

[bhsmte]

No evidence when you put a paper bag over your head and say:
"I don't hear nothing", "I don't hear nothing", "I don't hear nothing".

You show nothing, but we are all used to that by now.

 

[Zosimus]

You work it out Zosimus. The comment about R. Dawkins has left me decidedly disinclined to like you, or give a damn about where you are at.

America has a malaise. Nearly 400 million guns, evangelical Christianity, hyper patriotism, a totally retributive system of justice instead of rehabilitative, serious and widening disparity because of capitalism and the need for egalitarian policies to assist the racial underclass, and what are you doing about it but remaining a bigot?

What does any of this have to do with anything that I posted? Guns in the US? Why should I care about guns in the US?

Nor am I particularly sympathetic to your rant against capitalism. Remember that Peruvians grew up huddled in the dark, studying by candlelight while the Marxist Shining Path exploded car bombs in our neighborhoods, shot people, and terrorized us. As far as I'm concerned, the only good Marxist is a dead one.

 

[Phenotype]

What does any of this have to do with anything that I posted? Guns in the US? Why should I care about guns in the US?

Nor am I particularly sympathetic to your rant against capitalism. Remember that Peruvians grew up huddled in the dark, studying by candlelight while the Marxist Shining Path exploded car bombs in our neighborhoods, shot people, and terrorized us. As far as I'm concerned, the only good Marxist is a dead one.

I think we might both settle down. It is concerning to read your opinion on Marxists, or anyone in whose execution you would rejoice. It might apply to those who don't believe in God, gods or the supernatural, especially to those who will declare themselves atheists. Atheist the word has a militant sound to it. Christians and Muslims think we eat babies. It's OK not to believe in God, but atheist! My daughter is not marrying any damned atheist! I don't believe in the death penalty. We don't have it in Australia.

Yes, I read The God Delusion, after I had read 5 Dawkins books explaining evolution. He sure can write. He has won literary awards. In my case I was ready to concentrate on what I was reading. I was receptive because I had already been thinking critically about religion for 20 years. I was thinking there were things he could have said. There are a myriad ways one can expose religion for what it is, a mass delusion, antithetical to science and reason. Independent, critical thinking is really the Unpardonable Sin.

You can be a bit of a hothead. That line about Dawkins not having two brain cells is a waste of space and pixels. You do yourself a disservice talking like that. I could mock William Lane Craig, or Ken Ham. They are so tedious and ambitious to be prominent in their insular world. They are big time. They are heretics.

Dawkins is existentially authentic. He has applied his cognition and his integrity to what is true and important from his earliest days. He had a religious zeal for a while back in boarding school. He takes things seriously. He soon saw through religion as antagonistic to apprehending reality, as contrary to reason and free inquiry, science and ethics based in human reason.

The devil you know is worse than the devil you don't. Richard Dawkins gets death threats. There are YouTube videos of him reading them out for amusement. Their writers have no command of grammar or spelling. They are plainly uneducated and deluded bigots. Dawkins would personally and palpably feel how dangerous that mentality is. Death threats from born again Christians because he is an evolutionary biologist and challenges religion. Yes, it's serious. One can 'carry' a weapon in the USA. He takes up speaking engagement requests in the Southern states, the 'red' states, where enlightenment and progressivism is most needed.

Dawkins is right. We need upcoming research scientists. If you get cancer, you will want it cured and you know the preacher can't cast it out. Medical science will be your salvation then. And I hope it never comes to that. We do not need potentially bright young minds, future scientists taught that science and independent thinking is of the devil, is dangerously 'godless,' will lead you into perdition. Order online, pay for and eagerly await in the mail in a few days, then surreptitiously read The Magic of Reality, Richard Dawkins.

 

[Astrophile]

Regarding the anomalous procession of Mercury, Einstein realised that light and indeed space-time are bent by gravity.

You are completely missing the point.

Let's try another example. It is commonly theorized that the sun produces its power because of solar fusion.

So what are your explanations for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury and the source of the power of the Sun and the other stars?

 

[Phenotype]

Zosimus, that video you linked, Are Theories Falsifiable (Holistic Underdetermination) is classic sophistry. Can we have it so that Homer Simpson can understand it? Why is this individual so bent on devaluing science?

We all share the same senses. Empirical evidence is that which can be ultimately experienced by our universal sense faculties. Science is the study of the operations of nature. On that we develop technology. With technology we can create a Large Hadron Collider or a James Webb Telescope, upon physics knowledge, to obtain data inaccessible to the ordinary senses. With technology we can translate that data into images for public knowledge. We can figure out how to interpret the data. It is called cosmology.

It's really simple. This guy is a sophist. That is mendacious. What's his little agenda? His reasoning itself is fallacious. It is certainly tortuous. Did he impress you? You need to read more widely. Go in revolt. You'll be so glad you did. You will be allowed to really see the ridiculousness. Laughing just to keep from crying. 'The literal mind doesn't understand the ironic mind,' said Christopher Hitchens.

I will give you an axiom. It is axiomatic that everything has a naturalistic explanation. We may never learn if the multiverse hypothesis is true or not, but the material is all there is. If it's there it's there, if it's not it's not. If there was a god, it would be amenable to explanation just what it consists of, how it obtains. However, 'I have no need of that hypothesis,' said astronomer Simon Laplace to Napoleon.

The god of the gaps argument is on the run. This capricious, evasive god keeps having to retreat into regions we haven't adequately explained yet, like the quantum. Theoretical physicists are working on the theory of gravity and the Theory of Everything.

There is no soul either. A mind is in a brain. To believe in the soul in trying to explain consciousness, personhood, and in creationism is The Argument From Personal Incredulity, Richard Dawkins again.

 

[As I was saying]

I am sorry to hear you have had two bouts of cancer. The spectre of cancer is terrible, let alone contracting cancer. I don't care if you do believe in the afterlife and your faith earns you blessed assurance of heaven with the saints and angels and Jesus, facing one's mortality is no fun.

Having been so intimate with cancer, have you never wanted to read up on the real reason cancer arises? You expound the simplistic Christian teaching on the subject, why not get the understanding of mutation and DNA/RNA copying and the genetics of cancer from biology, driven by natural selection, biological science?

How is it that you were cured if not for the human quest to understand cancer, the rigorous research, education and training, dedication and intelligence that has been undertaken thus far? Do you trivialize that so God can get the glory? The quest to help humanity is a humanistic one. It has a history to it, the Greeks for example. We have evolved to work at understanding such processes and to combat suffering, though ignorance induces barbarity.

In your attempt to put one over belief in God, you have overstepped the mark in trying to impose your philosophy on others. I understand that it is inconceivable for you to even consider that belief in God brings a new dimension to life and death but them's the facts.

I should have died in 1976 as I was involved in a head on collision in a car travelling at 100kph. Moments before collision I said "Jesus here I come." At that moment in time I felt a pair of hands take hold of my shoulders (I was not wearing a seat belt) and as a result I did not die. I walked away from the crash virtually untouched. Since that day I have no fear of death.

Add to that it says that the day of our death is appointed by God so what is there to be afraid of? In a word...nothing. Knowing what there is to know about cancer changes nothing. It won't help me live another day. There is such a thing as common grace which means that despite sin and its effects, God gives the ability for some to find what the problem is and to solve the problem. Without that common grace, man would be left to destroy themselves. Just shows you how caring God is. Man has said they don't want anything to do with him but he still does things to help them out of their suffering.

But I know that atheists want to blame the God they don't believe exists for most of the things that the selfishness of mankind is responsible for.

 

[As I was saying]

So the claimed mechanism (which results in cancer) is not created by God?
So who determined this law?

Please let´s reduce the preaching, the ad hominems, the mind-reading and the emotionalisms to a minimum, and please try to concentrate on discussing the claims as they had been made.
Thanks.


Again: Who or what determined that degradation of society will result in cancer, if not God? Who or what is this entity beyond God that´s more installing such laws?

Anyway, my request was: Please explain the mechanism by which degradation of society results in cancer. I didn´t see the attempt at an answer.

First, it is the law of sin and death which we as believers have been set free from by the law of the spirit of life.

Second, I guess that is one way to avoid the truth. Make the other person look bad and yourself all holy and inscrutable.

Third, I will try and explain it in simple terms for you. I buy a new car and the salesman tells me that with regular servicing and maintenance the car will last forever. I ignore the salesman's wisdom and fail to get it serviced. I drive it down the road and the engine seizes up. Who is to blame? The manufacturer of the car? No. The salesman? No. I and I alone am to blame because I ignored the obvious and allowed the car to degenerate.

God created heaven and earth and everything that is in it and he intended it to function in a certain way. (you will note that Adam and Eve did not have to work at it). But sin got in the way and as a result we ignored the instructions and degradation set in. over time all sorts of diseases crept in because of it. As they arise we have been able to deal with each one of them. But the problem is another one arises to replace it so we are chasing our tails a lot of the time.

A classic example of sin causing sickness and death is AIDS. Man was not created to have multiple sex partners nor have sex with the same sex but they chose to ignore the instructions and as a result AIDS happened.

This happens because God, despite giving us the instructions gives us a free will to follow them or ignore them. AIDS is an example of what happens when we ignore them.

 

[As I was saying]

You are still misunderstanding my question.
I didn´t say "cancer is a mechanism". I asked for two things to be explained:
1. You said that degradation of society results in cancer. That´s a claimed cause-effect mechanism. I would like that to be explained. How exactly does it work?
2. I am asking "Who - if not God - established the mechanism by which degradation of society results in cancer (as opposed to, say, everyone growing additional legs or being able to fly for a result)?
Show me where I did any of that, and we can talk about it.
So you guys´ minds are infinite and infallible?

That comment was directed to atheists in general.

You do love making a mountain out of a molehill don't you. I said your mind is finite and fallible. I did not say mine was infinite or infallible. The bible says that the natural man cannot discern the things of the Spirit. To understand the things of the Spirit you need something more than the finite and fallible. You need spiritual discernment and spiritual knowledge which we are given by the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.

If you don't like that you will have to take it up with the God who you believe does not exist but believing that he does not exist is going to make it difficult for you to get answers. As I believe that he does exist, I do get answers.