If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[Flores]

Well, that is mighty kind of you, Flores, to offer to explain things to me, but the truth is, at least from what I have read, we do not speak the same language

You are right....I speak English and you speak bioshitographieology.

 

[James R]

Flores:

- Evolution doesn't explain biogenesis

Correct.

- Religion stand on this is that we were created from simple elements and were perfected over time.

So religion doesn't actually <b>explain</b> biogenesis either, does it? "God did it" is not a real explanation; it's just a nice story. A scientist will immediately ask "<b>How</b> did God do it? I want the details!"

Seems to me that the rest of the boring discussion of exactly what happened between creation (biogenesis) and where we are today belongs in the nerdy boring biology forum.

Seem to me that all boring discussion of water flow etc. should be in a boring water-flow forum too. Do you agree?

Don't you see that we are busy here cursing the hell out of each other...if we wanted to discuss science, we sure wouldn't be in a religion forum, and we expect you to abide by the rule and take your science out of religion, unless you are willing to call your half assed science a new religion, and we all know how those ugly cults get started.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to exactly what is "half assed" about the theory of evolution as a science? You haven't done a very good job of that so far. Your arguments to date basically amount to "I don't like it, so it must be wrong." You'll need to do better than that, Flores.

 

[Flores]

Flores:

Correct.

So religion doesn't actually <b>explain</b> biogenesis either, does it?

Yes it does, we just by default of being created matter don't seem to be equipped enough to understand the position or logic of a creator. We were created from Nothing though, how exactly? God knows

Seem to me that all boring discussion of water flow etc. should be in a boring water-flow forum too. Do you agree?

Of course I agree....Major difference though between my hydro talk and your biology talk....You package your distractive material nicely enough with deciet in the back of your mind to push a wrong idiology, while I confess that I like to distract us from distraction itself. No agenda on my part beside wasting time....Damn FORD for making the stupid rule that you need to sit 8 hours a day stuck infront of a desk and computer to finish work that could be done in a half hour.

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to exactly what is "half assed" about the theory of evolution as a science? You haven't done a very good job of that so far. Your arguments to date basically amount to "I don't like it, so it must be wrong." You'll need to do better than that, Flores.

James, gotta run to the field, my ride is patiently awaiting downstairs...Do you know that you are too damn cute with your little physics serious moderator hat on...

 

[James R]

Flores:

Major difference though between my hydro talk and your biology talk....You package your distractive material nicely enough with deciet in the back of your mind to push a wrong idiology, while I confess that I like to distract us from distraction itself.

Looks like you're trying to create a distraction now.

Please point out where I have been deceitful.

Do you know that you are too damn cute with your little physics serious moderator hat on...

Aw, shucks. You're making me blush. However, flattery will get you nowhere in this discussion. Sorry.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

- Religion stand on this is that we were created from simple elements and were perfected over time.

which religion?

Should we now not choose which religion has the proper explanation for the creation event?

Or does it happen to be your religion?

So, do we have to conclude that every religion has its own creation story!? My knowledge on this subject is limited but I was under the impression that they are not the same. They can't be all right, or can they?

what are your thoughts on this matter?

 

[Flores]

Please point out where I have been deceitful.

As a very intelligent well educated man, I expect you to have a different understanding for the word deceit. At your level, deceit is knowingly and prematurely jumping to conclusions...Deceit at your level lies in abusing your power of knowledge. Deceit at your level is total disregard for the integrity and intent of science by treating it like a race car againest your own ignorances and defecits. Deceit at your level is purposely slamming the door of knowledge shut by arrogantly assuming that you hold the string that once pulled will explain it all.

Aw, shucks. You're making me blush. However, flattery will get you nowhere in this discussion. Sorry.

Neither will logic, this discussion is doomed from the very start.

 

[Flores]

which religion?

The Theory of the ONE creator....duh monkey....Are you that unsubtle in bed??? We are talking about creation, creation that are all interrelated, creation that changes and adapts. Creation that according to your theory all emerged from one common source. Creation that display the unity of it's creator. Consider life: the creator makes everything out of one thing and makes one thing out of many things. The creator makes the countless members and systems of the animal body out of fertilizing sperm-bearing fluid. Thus, to make out of one thing everything is surely the work of an Absolutely All-Powerful One.

Should we now not choose which religion has the proper explanation for the creation event?

Jeezus Monkey? Why do you keep swinging from the rigid Atheistic tree to the rigid fanatic tree like there is nothing else in between.

Or does it happen to be your religion?

No hope....You'll never become a good biologist until you gain back your innocence..you're too fucked by dogmas.

So, do we have to conclude that every religion has its own creation story!?

You are such a sissy like the rest of them....You would rather point the finger at misconceptions and stereotypes than to objectively examine the problem in hand.

My knowledge on this subject is limited but I was under the impression that they are not the same. They can't be all right, or can they?

Who the hell are THEY? Concentrate my dear monkey....You are making me dizzy. It's YOU not THEY.

 

[James R]

Neither will logic, this discussion is doomed from the very start.

Perhaps you're right. Well, good luck. Come back when you've thought about it a bit more.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The Theory of the ONE creator....duh

It is a theory now? I thought it previously was a truth.

monkey....Are you that unsubtle in bed???

yep, only know 2 positions.

We are talking about creation, creation that are all interrelated, creation that changes and adapts. Creation that according to your theory all emerged from one common source.

I only have one theory published and that is that the extension of the maintenance of the epithelial stem cell niche in teeth caused the phenomenon of switch between brachydonty to hypsodonty to hyspelodonty.

Creation that display the unity of it's creator. Consider life: the creator makes everything out of one thing and makes one thing out of many things. The creator makes the countless members and systems of the animal body out of fertilizing sperm-bearing fluid.

the female egg generally contributes more information than the male sperm.

Thus, to make out of one thing everything is surely the work of an Absolutely All-Powerful One.

I had the same feeling when I went to the toilet this morning and did a big one.

Jeezus Monkey? Why do you keep swinging from the rigid Atheistic tree to the rigid fanatic tree like there is nothing else in between.

I'm not a fanatic. My mind is as flexible as liquid snot as long as things makes sense. I'm only fanatic in love.

No hope....You'll never become a good biologist until you gain back your innocence..you're too fucked by dogmas.

Oh, I am quite aware that I am a shite biologist. I don't care about facts. I like to make up stories.

You are such a sissy like the rest of them....You would rather point the finger at misconceptions and stereotypes than to objectively examine the problem in hand.

The problem isn't then that you are biased?

Who the hell are THEY? Concentrate my dear monkey....You are making me dizzy. It's YOU not THEY.

I wasn't aware that you weren't aware that there was more than one religion and that these religions are not the same.

 

[mountainhare]

The law of biogenesis does not conflict with evolution.
Define what a 'kind' is, and then we can work from there...

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flores

Creation that display the unity of it's creator. Consider life: the creator makes everything out of one thing and makes one thing out of many things. The creator makes the countless members and systems of the animal body out of fertilizing sperm-bearing fluid.

........................Who could say it better? And yet, S. M. seemingly could only reply: "the female egg generally contributes more information than the male sperm."

When someone does give a reply with some substance, it is often passed over in preference for keeping one's distance from any light of reasoning. PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Flores: I am still on the computer, and I did under estimate you, I think. You have an ability to express beautiful, meaningful things in simple terms. A waterfall is in one regard simply water passing over the edge of some soil, rocks and so forth. On the other hand, it could be explained in not-so-simple terms, with big words and scientific facts. Both are important, but not contradictory; nor is one childish and one mature.

To say that one believes in the Creator of all things, seems too simple to some, and contradiction to intelligent reasoning. I wish I could better understand the core of this presumption. They have coined the word "Creationist" to mean the simple-minded, and apply to anyone who believes that there was/is a power bigger than us that brought this world together.

Your comment was so simple, and held so much truth. I should think that a reasonable person, knowledgable and sincere, could, from that, at least an appreciation of your take on creation. I am not so dense that I cannot understand one being an agnostic, or an athiest; therefore, if these be so astute, why can they not have some regard for something that never been disproven. Any reasonable person knows that God cannot be proven or disproven proven with argument. Therefore, we are left only to dispute their dogged comments, and to try to knock the legs from under their assumed superiority.

Who are you, Flores? I would like to know what you read, now that I have discovered your other vocabulary.

 

[Flores]

Flores: I am still on the computer, and I did under estimate you,

I actually like to be underestimated. You can't launch a spring from an overextended position, it would fire back. You have to compress first to launch properly....Now I feel overstreched all of a sudden.

To say that one believes in the Creator of all things, seems too simple to some, and contradiction to intelligent reasoning. I wish I could better understand the core of this presumption. They have coined the word "Creationist" to mean the simple-minded, and apply to anyone who believes that there was/is a power bigger than us that brought this world together.

As you just mentioned, what attracts me to the creationist position is it's overwhelming simplicity. Notice that Raithere's has chosen the following logo..."Plagued by infinities".. I'm also sometimes plagued by infinities, that's why I stay away from it. I hate the endless difficulties in multiplicity. I like the simplicity of a single answer for all problems.

When attributed to a creator, all problems become as easy as a single problem, while if they are ascribed to causes, a single problem becomes as difficult as all the problems. This is truly the difference between my ideology versus the Atheistic view.

Then you'll ask, but are you crazy? Is there a single maker of things out there creating things out of thin air? My take on this is simple. God is an originator. Creation is an origination or invention. That is, God brings a being into existence out of nothing, out of non-existence, and creates everything necessary for it, and then place some of those necessities in its hand.

Why does science insist on ignoring the originality/invention element and it's role in creation? Isn't that the most absurd thing to rule out originality and invention out of the equation of our creation?

Any reasonable person knows that God cannot be proven or disproven proven with argument. Therefore, we are left only to dispute their dogged comments, and to try to knock the legs from under their assumed superiority.

And you should continue to do as you do. A position of superiority should always be knocked. This position is not designed to be held by one or another. It should be a free game availabe for all at all times...So feel free to knock all you want.

Who are you, Flores?

Nobody...Really. I'm this predictable little goofy wife that her husband knows exactly when she's telling the truth or over reacting AGAIN by measuring the amount of twinkle in her eyes.

I would like to know what you read,

life is an open book...I must say though, I've always had a good filter for things..... It's sort of like having a good music ear. Enough me

I don't post in the evening or the weekend, so I shall read you next week.

 

[shrubby pegasus]

As you just mentioned, what attracts me to the creationist position is it's overwhelming simplicity. Notice that Raithere's has chosen the following logo..."Plagued by infinities".. I'm also sometimes plagued by infinities, that's why I stay away from it. I hate the endless difficulties in multiplicity. I like the simplicity of a single answer for all problems.

.

i really dont think the creationist perspective adds any simplicity. it only adds simplicity if you stop examining and asking questions of it. it is only simpler if you accept ignorance. in that case well the evolutionist theory can be made just as simple. a physical explanation can be made out to be as simple as one equation actually. how much more simple can an explanation be than that? the fundamental governinig of the universe can be summed up with F=ma and probably consevation of energy and momentum. you can explain every process in the universe with this. now that is simple.

 

[Raithere]

It is as if that living being is a drop distilled from the whole universe with the most subtle and sensitive balance. That means, to create this living being it would require having a free disposal of the whole universe and the one absolute power to unite all these things to make ONE being. How else can all the creations be so interrelated if it it wasn't the work of ONE power to start with?

This actually relates to a problem I have with God as creator. Frankly, I think it makes God seem kind of ham-handed. Part of what makes a work beautiful is its precision. I have to wonder about a work that must constantly be fiddled with. If the watchmaker has to stop by every day to adjust your watch so that it continues to function properly I wouldn't say that it's a very good watch. For me, part of the beauty and perfection of the Universe and Life is that they don't appear to need constant tweaking and fixing. I just don't see where the difficulty is between Evolution and God... a Universe this 'sensitive' and 'subtle' that works on its own seems to me a far greater creation. I also think that such a conception clarifies our purpose within it.

~Raithere

 

[mountainhare]

I really dont think the creationist perspective adds any simplicity. it only adds simplicity if you stop examining and asking questions of it.

Well said, sb!

Of course, 'Creationism' can either be very simplistic, or very complex.

The very simplistic model is by replying with "God did it!" to everything, and going no further.

The very complex model is replying "God did it! And this is how..."

Then you'll ask, but are you crazy? Is there a single maker of things out there creating things out of thin air? My take on this is simple. God is an originator. Creation is an origination or invention. That is, God brings a being into existence out of nothing, out of non-existence, and creates everything necessary for it, and then place some of those necessities in its hand.

HOW?
WHY?
Where is your evidence for spontaneous generation?

Merely because something is simple does not make it right.
Just because something is complex or difficult, does not mean that you can just ignore it.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

shrubby pegasus WROTE: "i really dont think the creationist perspective adds any simplicity. it only adds simplicity if you stop examining and asking questions of it. it is only simpler if you accept ignorance."

Way to go! When you have no good argument, respond with an insult!

PMT

 

[P. M. Thorne]

FLORES WRITES: I actually like to be underestimated. You can't launch a spring from an overextended position, it would fire back. You have to compress first to launch properly....Now I feel overstreched all of a sudden.

………..Oops, sorry!

FLORES: Then you'll ask, but are you crazy? Is there a single maker of things out there creating things out of thin air? My take on this is simple. God is an originator. Creation is an origination or invention. That is, God brings a being into existence out of nothing, out of non-existence, and creates everything necessary for it, and then place some of those necessities in its hand.

………..I take this very seriously, and this forum often seems to not take it seriously; however, I realize that some are on here to pass the time, others for ego reasons, and a few who are serious about these things. So, when I catch something that blooms with sincerity and reason, whether it is my persuasion or not, it gets my attention, as you did. Another reason I felt I must respond was that I had not noticed that about you, and this is because I let the language block me, I suppose. Nevertheless, I did express my appreciation for your thoughts, and this was why I asked who you were…a rather strange question, I suppose. Not sure, what I meant, except: “Gosh, you are serious about this.”

……….. As for what you read, I ask this rather often, because it gives me some insight as to where that one is. I cannot read enough, and I ponder so much that it takes me a while. Also, I read so much that has been written by such learned men, that some of it takes some chewing on my part, but it is worth it. I love philosophy and history. History, in my opinion, is one of the best ways to understand humankind. Will Durant is one of my favorite writers. I like long sentences and so forth. I like the contents of what I read to wrap around me and keep me for some moments in that special place of feeling the impact of living life with a purpose. I thank God for all those who sacrificed and left so much for us. I also read things that I do not necessarily believe, not to find fault, but to understand. Now, that is enough about me, and you did not even ask.

FLORES: Why does science insist on ignoring the originality/invention element and it's role in creation? Isn't that the most absurd thing to rule out originality and invention out of the equation of our creation?

………….You know what? I am not so sure they truly do. Rather, I would guess that if they should strike such a notion that it would be exceedingly difficult to retract or restate to include such a possibility without infallible proof, which they will most likely never have in this life. Spinoza wrote that it is innate in man to believe in God. I agree, and find it sad that some have managed to convince so many that atheism is a mark of intelligence. I think this lie took a strong foothold in the nineteenth century, so hard on Europe and such a boom to negativity.

FLORES: And you should continue to do as you do. A position of superiority should always be knocked. This position is not designed to be held by one or another. It should be a free game availabe for all at all times...So feel free to knock all you want.

…………..Well, I try to be kind and reasonable, but I am a “people,” and sometimes people react before they engage their reasoning and love for mankind, humankind, or whatever. I here and now admit that I become equally miffed with those who think they own God exclusively. In other words, I scarcely fit anywhere! But, truly I can say that my experiences in this world have brought me to realize more fully than most (I think) that humanity is part of God’s creation in the same way that all things are part of his creation, and that this all works together for our good, if we accept this wonderful provision.

FLORES: Nobody...Really. I'm this predictable little goofy wife that her husband knows exactly when she's telling the truth or over reacting AGAIN by measuring the amount of twinkle in her eyes.

………………That is sweet. There is nothing in this world more beautiful than a sweet, loving, person that is not so encumbered with this world that he cannot be real. I think we have had a belly full of sophistication, and are now a nation longing for something real.

I post whenever, but am interrupted much of the time. This makes me in a hurry more often than I would like. This morning, however, I have had some time to answer your post.

Until next time, ……..PMT

 

[shrubby pegasus]

shrubby pegasus WROTE: "i really dont think the creationist perspective adds any simplicity. it only adds simplicity if you stop examining and asking questions of it. it is only simpler if you accept ignorance."

Way to go! When you have no good argument, respond with an insult!

PMT

what insult?
what are you talking about. by the way my argument is a very good argument. you just choose not to acknowledge it, you choose ignorance instead of opening your mind

 

[P. M. Thorne]

shrubby pegasus writes: "what insult? what are you talking about."

Perhaps I can help. Here is the statement to which I referred: "it is only simpler if you accept ignorance"

Here is your most recent insult: "you choose ignorance instead of opening your mind"

PMT