Creation or Evolution?

[Impetus]

Fidel is a sinner and will go to the great pit of pasta (My own theological conclusion) Because he does not believe in our Spaghedeity . So Sayth the gospel of the Spaghedeity .:angryfire:
Just playing .

Ah, you also worship the great god Al Dente...

Muz

 

[Unforgiven]

A debate between non-god believers is a none debate.

Got to have opposing views and challenges.

There can be no winners on the topic of God, creationism or evolution because neither one are provable to the point where one could say, "this is it, this is the truth of the matter, thereby all should comply."

But is left up as a mystery on both sides so as to give mankind a goal to strive for.

I can say it works well and good for me, can I share it with you? Perhaps it will work well and good for you too, as it does for me.

Politically, the people whose values are in power dictate the nature of the course it takes, unless it is overthrown and by if so, the whole process starts up again.

The power that lasts the longest in time and prosperity, is by righteousness, the better system.

But it is not to say that it can not become corrupted from within and righteousness out the window, for then does the system collapse under its own make.

Peace>>>AJ

I don't know, but maybe you can if interested, have a deep and relevant discussion without all the triggers that polarize the whole thing. I mean spirituality is spirituality no matter what brand it comes in and there is plenty of area to look for commonality.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Do theists say that their religion applies only to them ?Of course not , they apply it to the world around them and and by extension you and me . It Infects out politics our laws our culture and our freedoms . If you have an idea about how the world works and apply it to everyone regardless then to expect me not to be critical is to expect me to back down before you , i wont .
God is a theory just because a lot of people accept it does not mean it is beyond reproach , I will repeat again there is just as much evidence to state that the flying spaghetti monster created the world (Pastofaction http://www.venganza.org/ ) that allah , buddaha , God, Yaweh created the world . If your feelings are hurt there is always the iggy button I don't really care if you read my posts or not (As a matter of fact anyone offended by my free-thought might as well join him )

Feelings being hurt pfffffffft...forget that ok . Monority Observer I welcome your input.
I aggre with your above post ...Even your use of the word infects as applied to wrong view being wielded by those that govern us.

but please take note at my point towards attacking a Christian fundamentalist's belief system in a forum and offering only hollow words as something that the Christian should follow. i'm not refering to you but to Unforgiven.He was charging the christian and asking him to give up his belief in God to live in the real and the now...yeah right thats a clear option ...Not to mention it has nothing to do with creation/evolution


now you come up a with a pasta parody and thats all fun and fine and makes a point.

But please bear with me for a second.....
I don't follow Christian thought.
I do praise their good works of charity.
Their belief system inspires love and compassion and a decent way of living.

One should not forget what effect this religon has on the billion people practising it.

Please don't blame the corruption on the belief system. The system itself requires one to be honest and have a right livelyhood and treat people with decency and one should offer help when the opportunity affords itself....
this is what i shall always protect and put my 2 cents in when someone wishes to troll another in a forum.

Now reading your posts that follow could you make it clear to me , in your own words, the nature of our existance and how it came into being.
Not just scientific aspects like energy and mass equations but just how it got started. If you are going to argue in a thread about creation or evolution and dismiss the God creationists theory without giving an alternative , it irks me ...ok ...is that ok.....

that being said minority observer i do aggree with what you said in the above post....

 

[Unforgiven]

follow. i'm not refering to you but to Unforgiven.He was charging the christian and asking him to give up his belief in God to live in the real and the now...yeah right thats a clear option ...Not to mention it has nothing to do with creation/evolution

I did nothing of the sort. You're spoiling for a fight but you're not worth the effort. :roll:

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

I did nothing of the sort. You're spoiling for a fight but you're not worth the effort. :roll:

Well truth be known i'm not unforgiven.
I stand corrected your not trolling look3457



I'm debating with your posts.
It can't be helped in a forum.
Your accusations are just that,accusations.

 

[CMCummings]

You are all standing your ground…(Music Please!...Where is the Fat Lady?)…and you won’t back down…

…Some of you are very well read…and…Some of you read very well…and…Some of you can be read very well…

For those that do not believe…it is because you never have…A true believer knows and understands what it means to be saved...

And a man is not damned because he does not believe…

…and for some “being cursed or damned” is cherished by them that are…and they wouldn’t have it any other way…

For The Believer and…The Non Believer:

“The remainder begins with “why” there are only two kinds of mankind: “Red & White” and Black & White…(this has nothing to with a mans color) I am complete within the knowledge of this “however” it is doubtful that any of you are?…And if you are, you have done well by holding your peace”…

And you can know the secrets of all these things…And right or wrong most believe that they should…Extreme knowledge related in the faith is known as Strong Meat or Medicine for the believers…

Extreme Knowledge “on the other hand” is more quickly received by none believers…because they are not reined or yoked as a believer…

However the extent of the believer and the non believer does not necessarily relate to religion.

By

…“some more than others”…

PS. “What’s in your wallet”?

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

You are all standing your ground…(Music Please!...Where is the Fat Lady?)…and you won’t back down…

…Some of you are very well read…and…Some of you read very well…and…Some of you can be read very well…

For those that do not believe…it is because you never have…A true believer knows and understands what it means to be saved...

And a man is not damned because he does not believe…

…and for some “being cursed or damned” is cherished by them that are…and they wouldn’t have it any other way…

For The Believer and…The Non Believer:

“The remainder begins with “why” there are only two kinds of mankind: “Red & White” and Black & White…(this has nothing to with a mans color) I am complete within the knowledge of this “however” it is doubtful that any of you are?…And if you are, you have done well by holding your peace”…

And you can know the secrets of all these things…And right or wrong most believe that they should…Extreme knowledge related in the faith is known as Strong Meat or Medicine for the believers…

Extreme Knowledge “on the other hand” is more quickly received by none believers…because they are not reined or yoked as a believer…

However the extent of the believer and the non believer does not necessarily relate to religion.

By

…“some more than others”…

PS. “What’s in your wallet”?

it's a good read but what is the point?
twice i read this cause it seemed it was meant to be understood.....
Is this Conklin or Barnum and Baily?

 

[CMCummings]

1. The POINT is that you have read it...and 2. it is meant to be understood!...and 3. possibly you don't understand it because it isn't Conklin or Barnum and Baily?

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

1. The POINT is that you have read it...and 2. it is meant to be understood!...and 3. possibly you don't understand it because it isn't Conklin or Barnum and Baily?

I think I'm ticked at making fun of people's beliefs, and i've done my fair share.
I've shifted from the angle of belief as something to view as truth or false.
I see the purpose in the belief system. That is being , to help the wild and unruly to be tamed...???...To make use of a life that otherwise would be one of harm to society and ones person...???....

I aslo am starting to see where as a lot of people can make fun and ridicule the believer in religions ...YET!!!they offer no other viable answer to the very questions the believer has come to believe in....

Just riducule the belief....it's lame...it's from a point of superiority without the credentials to be superior.....


dunno ..it's me headspace for now.....

 

[Dexter Sinister]

except humans do not really live in the environment anymore ...

Whatever gave you that idea? It's true that we've been able to insulate ourselves from a lot of the usual forces of natural selection--primarily predation, certain injuries and diseases, and infant mortality--with our technologies, but don't kid yourself into thinking there are no longer any selection pressures on homo sapiens. Disease organisms, for instance, are evolving in lockstep with our preventive technologies, and people still die, even in the most technologically advanced nations, of infections. I suggest you pick up a fascinating little book called Survival of the Sickest by Dr. Sharon Moalem and Jonathon Prince for a detailed examination of that kind of idea.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I am having a problem here and need your help.

I am thinking to myself, how and why do unbelievers fight so hard to disprove that there is no god, when if left alone, wouldn't matter anyways at the end.

My only reasoning is that they must believe that He exists, otherwise, why bother to dispute it.

No, if they believed he existed they wouldn't be motivated to dispute it. They dispute it because they don't believe he exists. I'd further argue that most unbelievers aren't trying to show there's no god, they're trying to get the people who believe there is one to make their case properly, according to the usual rules of logic and evidence. I think no such case can be made; I've certainly never seen one that could survive even minimal skeptical scrutiny, and I've read many versions of all the usual arguments, from St. Augustine onwards. There simply is *no* good evidence or reasoning that supports the claim.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I don't see any point in saying there is no God without offering a viable alternative....

What does that mean? There are only three options: zero, one, or multiple, gods. The evidence is strongly in favour of the first option.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

That is what einstein meant when he said that he believed in god , his god is nature...

Einstein never said any such thing as far as I know, and I've read most of what he wrote. He did make reference to sharing Spinoza's view of god, and Spinoza quite explicitly identified god with nature, but in the usual way people understand the term god, that's not a god at all, it's just the sum of all that exists. You can of course define the word 'god' any way you like for the purposes of argument, but defining it that way destroys most of the debate. Unless the extreme solopsist position is true (highly doubtful), there's no question that nature exists, there is a reality that exists regardless of our perceptions of it, and if you call that god, well, fine, but it means god isn't an individual entity, isn't intelligent, and isn't actively running anything, he's just the physical laws that describe what happens. That's a long way from what most people mean when they use the word.

 

[look3467]

No, if they believed he existed they wouldn't be motivated to dispute it. They dispute it because they don't believe he exists. I'd further argue that most unbelievers aren't trying to show there's no god, they're trying to get the people who believe there is one to make their case properly, according to the usual rules of logic and evidence. I think no such case can be made; I've certainly never seen one that could survive even minimal skeptical scrutiny, and I've read many versions of all the usual arguments, from St. Augustine onwards. There simply is *no* good evidence or reasoning that supports the claim.

I liked this post Dexter, but still have to say that to disprove something is to believe that something exists, otherwise, there is nothing to disprove.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Unforgiven]

Einstein never said any such thing as far as I know, and I've read most of what he wrote. He did make reference to sharing Spinoza's view of god, and Spinoza quite explicitly identified god with nature, but in the usual way people understand the term god, that's not a god at all, it's just the sum of all that exists. You can of course define the word 'god' any way you like for the purposes of argument, but defining it that way destroys most of the debate. Unless the extreme solopsist position is true (highly doubtful), there's no question that nature exists, there is a reality that exists regardless of our perceptions of it, and if you call that god, well, fine, but it means god isn't an individual entity, isn't intelligent, and isn't actively running anything, he's just the physical laws that describe what happens. That's a long way from what most people mean when they use the word.

Awesom to see you do in a paragraph what I attempt to do in pages and pages and never manage to execute. It's the shifting of the idea of what God is supposed to be you see, that I'm after.

Same thing with this losing "I" business.

 

[ottawabill]

what a silly concept..if it is evolution or creation.....isn't it one and the same? for something to evolve ..does it not need to be created?

If God didn't create life..then what... you still need something/somebody some force to kick start it...

you could leave a rock sitting still for 8 billion years but nothing will happen..it won't come to life...Some force must do it...To me that force is God. God is a force, not a person or man...

The Bible uses stories to get "big picture" stories across to a simply society 4,000 years ago, Jesus as well used stories, fables, tales etc to have people understand bigger issues and who they fit in.

The story of creation tells an accurate acount of what happened, but it does tell it in a story form understandable to people at the time.

It says the suns stars and palnets were made first,
plants came next,
then sea creatures....even calling some sea monsters (dinosaurs maybe)
then Animals,
then people.
outside of saying it was done in 7 days, what is the issue?
to ne either it was written as 7 days to help seperate each creatation or God's days are not ours...likely they are not.

But again..if there is no God it is up to others to prove there is a way to just kick start life....
a rock doesn't just sprout legs and move...it needed some help....anything else seems rather impossible...

 

[Dexter Sinister]

you could leave a rock sitting still for 8 billion years but nothing will happen..it won't come to life...Some force must do it...To me that force is God. God is a force, not a person or man....

But don't you see that that doesn't really explain anything? What is the nature of this god? Where did he come from? Exactly what did he do, and how did he do it?

The story of creation tells an accurate acount of what happened...

Assuming you're referring to the Biblical creation story, no it doesn't, it gets the sequence mostly wrong. The earth is made first, then light is created before there are any light-generating objects, then heaven is created, then plants, then the sun and moon and stars and whatnot, then sea creatures and birds, then land animals, which includes humans at the end of the process. The earth didn't appear before the sun did, plants didn't arise before sea creatures, and birds didn't appear before land animals. The only thing right in the sequence Genesis describes is putting humans last.

But again..if there is no God it is up to others to prove there is a way to just kick start life.... a rock doesn't just sprout legs and move...it needed some help....anything else seems rather impossible...

No rock ever sprouted legs; that would indeed have been pretty much miraculous and would certainly confirm your views. As for the proof you want, it's true that we don't yet know precisely how life began, but there are lots of plausible hypotheses around and the evidence at no point suggests there was any supernatural intervention. All it'd take is for a single, self-replicating molecule to arise and natural selection kicks in immediately.

Besides, the logic of the argument is the other way around. You're the one making the claim that god did it, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate god's existence and actions in creating life. Science just says we don't know yet how it happened but we're working on it and we have some pretty good ideas and evidence. You've got nothing but a retreat into mystery.

 

[Unforgiven]

what a silly concept..if it is evolution or creation.....isn't it one and the same? for something to evolve ..does it not need to be created?

No I don't think so, not even remotely similar. On one hand you have some invisible man in the sky sweeping his hand across the universe and creating a whole multitude of things. In seven days.

While on the other hand, you have various components coming together in one place to eventually mix and produce a hybrid that meets they criteria we have for a life form. From there the life form changes through generations of reproduction based on it's successes.

The Christian God made man in his own likeness and as we are right from the start. No room for evolution or other like species.

If God didn't create life..then what... you still need something/somebody some force to kick start it...

So you're saying that If I take sperm and fertilize an egg I still need something else to kick start it? This flies in the face of all that we know to be true in biology.

you could leave a rock sitting still for 8 billion years but nothing will happen..it won't come to life...Some force must do it...To me that force is God. God is a force, not a person or man...

That is interesting. What do you base this theory on?
An example: Hawaii was made from volanic rock which after it cools and settles, become furtile ground for growing in. A tree grows in this ground and ingests nutrients from the volcanic rock and is a living thing. In such it can be said that the rock is in fact changed into a living thing.

Please explain the conflict in logic.

The Bible uses stories to get "big picture" stories across to a simply society 4,000 years ago, Jesus as well used stories, fables, tales etc to have people understand bigger issues and who they fit in.

So do I. Therefore what?

The story of creation tells an accurate acount of what happened, but it does tell it in a story form understandable to people at the time.

Well maybe you can explan it to me and others here so that I can see the connection. As it is, I don't see how it can be considered an accurate account at all. I'm very willing to listen to what you have to say about it though.

It says the suns stars and palnets were made first,
plants came next,
then sea creatures....even calling some sea monsters (dinosaurs maybe)
then Animals,
then people.
outside of saying it was done in 7 days, what is the issue?

This is incorrect as stars and planets are forming all the time. And they are in fact made of dust and debris circling a star.

to ne either it was written as 7 days to help seperate each creatation or God's days are not ours...likely they are not.

A day is a single rotation of the earth. A day is a day and relevent to the planet not the person isn't that right?

But again..if there is no God it is up to others to prove there is a way to just kick start life....
a rock doesn't just sprout legs and move...it needed some help....anything else seems rather impossible...

You sound a little skeptical here.

 

[Dreadful Nonsense]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocDred
I don't see any point in saying there is no God without offering a viable alternative....

What does that mean? There are only three options: zero, one, or multiple, gods. The evidence is strongly in favour of the first option.

My point that seems elusive on people is this.

We have a "creation or evolution "thread , where the topic gets thrusted towards the very beginning of existance and how it came about.Then someone offers their God creation scenario. It gets refuted on the basis of belief.
Ok so you don't believe, then how did it start?

So if you are going to shred a man's religous belief don't you owe him the courtesy to at least offer a viable alternative to how the creation came about.

Then Dexter says zero.
Leaving it at zero...fine...from zero you get zero....thats your answer?8O
Now i don't understand you dexter.

If one in course of discussion doesn't have a alternative explanation and only sticks to saying i don't believe in what you are saying, don't you find that odd.Not only that but continues to bring up reason for your theory of creation to be wrong, and still no alternative.

Soooooooo....you don't believe in God. Fine it's a free country. If you are going to rise to the occasion to refute God the creator in a thread about creation shouldn't you at least have a viable alternative?

It's just where my head is at in a few threads as of late guys and gals....
I think it is fair stance and something to be answered.

Maybe my heads in the toilet...fine lets keep it civil and bring me to my senses.
Please.

 

[s_lone]

Unless the extreme solopsist position is true (highly doubtful), there's no question that nature exists, there is a reality that exists regardless of our perceptions of it, and if you call that god, well, fine, but it means god isn't an individual entity, isn't intelligent, and isn't actively running anything, he's just the physical laws that describe what happens. That's a long way from what most people mean when they use the word.

OK Dexter. Let's call nature God. Let's say God exists only in the sense that God is everything.

Can you really logically and convincingly get to conclusions such as that ''god isn't an individual entity, isn't intelligent''?