Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or maybe it makes sense to you and due to poor communication it makes NO sense to him?
I have yet to meet a single evangelical with a college degree who cannot admit the possibility of evolution and the Big Bang being true after just 15 minutes of discussing and listening to a person who wasn't trying to beat them over the head with what they regard as questionable science.
We do not reject micro-adaptations or micro-evolution whichever term you prefer,we do however reject humans being relatives to other primates other than homo sapiens.
God made man from the dust of the ground and then God gave us like Him, which I have long understood to be when humanity was ensouled and made capable of reflective, cognitive thought.
And what is dirt made from? A good part of it is single cell organisms in dormant state, a lot of it, so how else would God's writer from thousands of years prior to modern science, how would that writer describe evolution from single cell creatures? Maybe the dirt Goid mad us from is simply a reference to being made from animal forms that originated long ago?
Why do you feel it is legit to interpret a non-scientific literary form written by pastoral society scribes long long time ago as though Genesis were a modern scientific text?
Big Bang possible I have not seen anything to convince me of the theory. There are evidences that suggest it never happened.
Background cosmic radiation has features that are best/most easily explained by the Big Bang theory, at least for now.
now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..lair liar pants on fire !Tree-ring counting can be interpreted in several different ways with different factors being considered. I don't know how old the earth is and it's not that important to me.
you've spent god knows (pun intended)how many pages on the creationist thread attempting to prove a young earth.
now you say it's not that important.. who's ass are you trying to kiss now?
if it isn't obvious to other posters by now ywc will latch on to any mention of god or Christianity that he imagines will bolster his bullshit.
Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.
now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..lair liar pants on fire !
you've spent god knows (pun intended)how many pages on the creationist thread attempting to prove a young earth.
now you say it's not that important.. who's ass are you trying to kiss now?
if it isn't obvious to other posters by now ywc will latch on to any mention of god or Christianity that he imagines will bolster his bullshit.
Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.
well you're not.
you suck at semantics!
btw there is no evidence supporting your view
It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your own creation story?
I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments.
You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.
still attempting to evade ..now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.
well you're not.
you suck at semantics!
btw there is no evidence supporting your view
Look so there is no confusion I believe the earth is closer to 6,000 years old then 4 billion is that to hard for you to comprehend ?
now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..Who is lying ? have I not stated no one knows how old the earth is ? yes. Have I said I don't believe the earth is as old as has been claimed by evolutionists ? yes Is there evidence supporting my view ? yes.
well you're not.
you suck at semantics!
btw there is no evidence supporting your view
Look so there is no confusion I believe the earth is closer to 6,000 years old then 4 billion is that to hard for you to comprehend ?
bullshit !bullshit !wow! talk about A COMPLETE DISCONNECT from reality...
only you would say this statement of fact:" and as always you be wrong...
genetics and microbiology are for all practical purposes the same : Genetic Microbiology is a sub discipline of microbiology dealing especially with genetic components of life such as DNA and RNA....
what we were actually discussing is your imaginary superiority in education and life in general.
you spend most of your time here looking for some fantasy breech in your detractors evidence or character you can exploit."- me IS IGNORANCE .
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said I'd been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.
No what we were discussing was what Molecule were the earliest organisms constructed from. Then you claimed you learned this in High school in genetics and I am saying you're ignorant of the facts. The question I asked you was life from Biochemistry at the Molecular level.
So yes you're ignorant of the facts.
THE molecules of Rna and Dna are best learned in molecular biology.
we'll do this one more time.
the above is a refuting of your obsession with your own education about every 100 pages in the creationist thread you bring it up ,almost always when you're getting your ass handed to you.
it was in response to one of "those" post where I said I'd been taught a larger volume and verity of science the you had.
as always your hubris read it misshapen head.
that's when you decided to test me with molecule question. the rest is you being pissed off at the fact you'd failed find fault with my answer.
this is your second attempt to rewrite the facts.
I can only conclude it's because you're wrong.
still attempting to evade ..now you're attempting to bullshit your way out of it..
well you're not.
you suck at semantics!
btw there is no evidence supporting your view
Look so there is no confusion I believe the earth is closer to 6,000 years old then 4 billion is that to hard for you to comprehend ?
While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.
And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
Similarly, we have no way to confirm this spiritual nature canard you toss about. And lets be honest, as much as you have tried to hide your religious fundamentalism behind slogans and canards, you're really just a mere, pedestrian hater.
It seems that spouting platitudes, regurgitating cliches, and condemning other people who dont share your religious beliefs is a simple matter for the religiously self-righteousness.
Whats interesting in your categorization of the heathen infidel revolves around the one constant that has driven religious belief: fear of the unknown and the second place finisher that drives faith: rewards in an afterlife. Those were, and are, the promise of religion in the first place!
And my overwhelming experience is that believers find it very easy to believe because the dynamic of the belief system makes you feel good about choosing "correctly" and it addresses your concerns about mortality. It just doesn't back them up with any authority. My point is that faced with a belief that there is no safety net, we can either roll up into a ball or we can face our reality, and that is a noble response to a cold and unmovable truth. I don't think I could diminish that aspect of it.
Overwhelmingly, people have simply inherited their religions and then go about their daily lives and it has minimal to no real impact. Billions go through their rituals and really their religious beliefs are more or less like a second nature they really give no second thought to. It simply is the way it is for them. Honestly, how many theists do you know who could even assess the problem of Pascal's Wager, let alone have even heard of it?
It's interesting to note, one of the more popular abiogenic theories centers around chemical reactions in moisture found in clay... sounds very much like God spitting in the dust, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your oewn creation story?
I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments.
You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.
While you have every right to your beliefs they cannot stop the march of progress and knowledge.
And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
Its not understanding, as this presupposes a spiritual realm exists. It is merely a belief. People also believe in Bigfoot. So what. Again, belief does not demonstrate truth. This entire thread is refuted by this face alone.
No, it doesn't.
You've invented your own terms for religious belief you call "spiritual nature" so why not invent your oewn creation story?
I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments.
You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for your slogans including "spiritual nature" in your post above. Interestingly, the validity of your comments are Identical
And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
Its not understanding, as this presupposes a spiritual realm exists. It is merely a belief. People also believe in Bigfoot. So what. Again, belief does not demonstrate truth. This entire thread is refuted by this face alone.
As I pointed out in the OP, "proof" is subjective, it relies on our perception of what is and isn't "evidence" of something. I have asked you to explain the phenomenon of human spirituality, and every explanation you have offered, defies science, defies Darwin, and defies logic.
You can rationally claim that Bigfoot is the product of human imaginations run wild, and since there have never been any bones found or physical evidence to support Bigfoot, we can reasonably assume you are probably correct. But if 95% of humans throughout human existence, had consistently reported some encounter with Bigfoot, and this belief in Bigfoot had been the most defining attribute in humans, we wouldn't be able to simply dismiss that as imagination.
I haven't "invented" anything. Spiritual nature is what humans have always spiritually connected to, and you've not disproven it's existence. I've repeatedly asked you to present some evidence, make a case, show us some science... and all you continue to do, is spew the same "because I say so" arguments.
You have invented your own order of disbelief.... there is no clear physical evidence to support a spiritual nature, therefore, it doesn't exist. We can't presently verify or confirm spiritual nature with physical science, therefore, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Your mind remains firmly closed to any possibility, completely defying the scientific method, which never ever draws such conclusions. Your explanations and reasonings defy science and what we do know about animal behavior. You've literally adopted this disbelief as your "spiritual religion," and you are determined to take the closed-minded viewpoint to your grave.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for your slogans including "spiritual nature" in your post above. Interestingly, the validity of your comments are Identical
Illogical... no one has ever claimed a spiritual connection to the Easter Bunny.
And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
Its not understanding, as this presupposes a spiritual realm exists. It is merely a belief. People also believe in Bigfoot. So what. Again, belief does not demonstrate truth. This entire thread is refuted by this face alone.
As I pointed out in the OP, "proof" is subjective, it relies on our perception of what is and isn't "evidence" of something. I have asked you to explain the phenomenon of human spirituality, and every explanation you have offered, defies science, defies Darwin, and defies logic.
You can rationally claim that Bigfoot is the product of human imaginations run wild, and since there have never been any bones found or physical evidence to support Bigfoot, we can reasonably assume you are probably correct. But if 95% of humans throughout human existence, had consistently reported some encounter with Bigfoot, and this belief in Bigfoot had been the most defining attribute in humans, we wouldn't be able to simply dismiss that as imagination.
And yet, in spite of the march, 95% of all humans, still have some spiritual understanding.
Its not understanding, as this presupposes a spiritual realm exists. It is merely a belief. People also believe in Bigfoot. So what. Again, belief does not demonstrate truth. This entire thread is refuted by this face alone.
As I pointed out in the OP, "proof" is subjective, it relies on our perception of what is and isn't "evidence" of something. I have asked you to explain the phenomenon of human spirituality, and every explanation you have offered, defies science, defies Darwin, and defies logic.
You can rationally claim that Bigfoot is the product of human imaginations run wild, and since there have never been any bones found or physical evidence to support Bigfoot, we can reasonably assume you are probably correct. But if 95% of humans throughout human existence, had consistently reported some encounter with Bigfoot, and this belief in Bigfoot had been the most defining attribute in humans, we wouldn't be able to simply dismiss that as imagination.
No, it isn't, its only your comprehension of it that makes it so. But that is because yo don't grasp it for what it is, but what you want to think it is so you can rip it up like the typical straw man.
We KNOW Darwin was a Christian during his life, but there is no direct evidence of him ever being an atheist.
There is nothing incompatible between Christianity or Creationism as properly understood as a philosophical concept as opposed to evolution as a concept of biology.
The contention is either based on one side not understanding the other side or deliberate misrepresentation and lies.
Again, being an atheist back then was highly controversial, so you shouldn't expect outright admission of atheism, as this was grounds ex-communication and thus, becoming a social outcast, which was too high of a price for most people.
People left churches to join others or simply refrain from any church activity. If such cause Darwin to pose as a borderline agnostic then he was a coward, and I do not believe that plausible given the criticism he willing accepted when he advanced the theory of evolution.
For some reason it is simply the fad among atheists and other 'victim' groups to go through history and claim some notable person as a member of the victims group. Its almost like feeling normal or something.
So you leap from a 'more correct' label of agnostic, to out right atheism? And you wonder why some here think you are not being objective?
Sounds to me like he was a good scientist who had the unfortunate condition of being born Anglican and it being the most vivid representation of Christianity in his life. Hell, I would plausibly have become an agnostic with him in such a communion of snakes and fakes.
No, plenty of people back then were openly atheist, so there was no need to pose.
He denied specific parts of what was generally perceived as revelation similar to Thomas Jefferson. That is not a complete rejection of all revelation.
In regard to origin myths.
It does however have direct relation to my contention that there is no contention between Christianity and evolution if Christians themselves came up with the concept to begin with.
And you demonstrate again your inability to try to grasp the intent and meaning of the person you are responding to. You desperately want to cast science and Christianity as being mutually incompatible, why I don't know. But there is no basis for it among those on both sides who understand the limits and scope of both areas of knowledge.
As for my "misunderstanding" of creationism: you said it yourself. "It is possible that god did it." How is this different than "god dun it?" It isn't.
Lol, one is an assertion, while the other is simply an observation of possible alternatives.
You don't get that because you don't want to get it.
You admitted it yourself. You confirm your own position as being a one-dimensional appeal to the supernatural to handle all theodicies which you can't otherwise explain. This is especially weak apologetics.
And your straw man horde you presented in your response demonstrates my actual contention; that the only people who assert that science and religion are incompatible are either ignorant of some part of one or both, or these people are deliberately dishonest.
You do not understand Creationism. As a person raised in such beliefs and who studied it far more than most when I converted to Catholicism, I assure you that what you think it is has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christians of all denominations on this planet.
So why don't you stop the slander and try to gain a true grasp of what Creationism is according to the actual majority Christians and leave the fundamentalists to speak only for themselves?
Here's an interesting thought experiment. Substitute "The Easter Bunny" for your slogans including "spiritual nature" in your post above. Interestingly, the validity of your comments are Identical
Illogical... no one has ever claimed a spiritual connection to the Easter Bunny.
Completely logical. The Easter Bunny is as real and extant as your Invention of "spiritual nature".
