Let's revisit some of your inquiring questions then: The religious way one silliness after another, geese.

Humans didn't come from sludge and microbiology is rather a newer field of study ... but it is only interested in biology on very small microscopic scale, that couldn't be of help to support biblical myths ... but it has a lot to say about evolution.

Then stop not asking.

Is it that difficult to stop not asking? Find them yourself because this is the last time I am going to baby you like this.

I see just fine but you are the only christian I know who views the word of god as too general and needs just the right people to tell us all what it really says, yea right.

The book is chockfull of errors, gross inaccuracies and impossible exaggerations. It was compiled from who knows who's fables by who knows who and then translated by who knows who for who knows how long and the gospels were Mathew, Mark, Luke and John whoever they were (not the writers of course) and the bible, the true word of god was born of man who called it a bible … and that is the paper trail of the word of god you see as flawless, I just see it flawed, period.

Lets not and just say we did ... this is your burden of proof not mine because I don't believe it and therefore I don't care. It is impossible for me to hate, dislike, question, show interest in or respect something I don't believe in, not a problem for you I see.

I don't care about sociopaths other than to keep them at bay but they aren't involved with biblical truths so are not germane to the topic, but I think there are many books that will help you with this problem if it persists.    # 35 is just more superfluous nonsense.

Perhaps not, just a guess because you haven't actually told me ... yet. The rest is just trying to establish biblical morality which I find appalling. Now you just ask me to explain the moral code of humanity of which I don't care to take the time. Human morality is innate in all of us; religious folk just need celestial permission to comprehend morality is all.

I don't have any problems differencing  good from bad or right from wrong. The rest (6,999,999,999) you will have to ask yourself but again it seems Christians need to be told these difficult to comprehend things.    #39 is just silly as usual.

All I did was ask your source because I find just about everything you have said so far a joke so how was I to know this was a REAL one and not another imaginary one??? That’s one of the problems with mysticism ... you are only limited by your imagination ... no reality is required or desired. It is absolutely impossible to be a critical thinker and believe the bible to be the faultless word of some god. No critical thinker would ever say something stupid like "evolution doesn't work period".  

When you ask me about evolution a subject I do enjoy, you are not really asking me anything. You are telling me it is FUBAR by asking ridiculous nonsensical questions because you know so little actual theory (if any?) so you don't know how to even ask meaningful questions. It is not my job to teach you what evolution is. You have as much access to information as I do and I have no problem finding it. You want me to prove your made up god doesn't exist when you cannot prove he does ... first.

Lula #42, please fix your pictures or remove them.

This helps make my point concerning the OP topic ....Origins. 

The Special Creation view accepts, on the basis of Faith in the revealed God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, that Almighty God created gravity and electricity and the laws that govern them for man's good and use. Also, that Almighty God created Man and man used what God gave him and made the automobile. 

We humbly praise God for everything we have been given. 

The atheistic Evolution view accepts, on the basis of faith in fallible man, that nothing exploded into something and evolved into the universe, all laws, and all that's in it, including plant animal and human life. 

They hold themselves up high and say look at how smart we are.

They understand that the automobile requires thought, intelligence and careful workmanship, but everything else around us in nature, is declared to be the result of accidental mutational mishaps, random chance, and lots of time called "stellar and biological evolution"!

 

 

  

 

Then again, here you go using terminology and religious bias as if they were anything but insults which is why you guys do it, shucks. Whatever “accidental mutational mishaps” is or has to do with everything concerning evolutionary theory (successes anyway) is beyond me but mishaps occur all the time even today but. I like this one though, “random chance” yep that is evolution religious style, and sure it is important but the main driver in forward looking evolution, try to be realistic. You have the ‘lots of time’ right but you have no grasp of it at all because five thousand years is hardly a drop in the bucket so you just take the bucket away and therefore all of evolution too. Personally I call 13.7 billion years ~ infinity because it is all of our time (to date). As far as I am concerned, 4.7 billion years constitutes ‘enough time’ for evolutionary processes to succeed, at least on earth. Darwin called it ‘natural selection’ which is a key component. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science, but they are just scientists. Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large. Then in the 1900’s, genetics was applied to evolutionary theory and we started getting many answers that previously eluded us (beyond our technology at the time). There are numerous books written by the scientific intellectuals who deal with one aspect or another of the evolutionary process. So you see, this kind of nonsense (but everything else around us in nature, is declared to be the result of accidental mutational mishaps, random chance, and lots of time called "stellar and biological) is nothing but a meaningless insult because it is wrong. This clip was instrumental in the Dover trial where ID (repackaged creationism) got thrown out on its arse (as creationism has) for obvious reasons. Pay attention to chromosomes 2 and 13 and the placement of the telomeres and centromeres; this doesn’t comply biblically. Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic scientist and had no problem proving human evolution.

How To Shut Up Pesky Creationists    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdByuGCKCG4

PS - The whole point of the car was to demonstrate that we don't need to understand the ‘microverse’ on every level as long as we can safely use what we know enabling us to delve deeper into life’s mysteries.

Lula

GFTESS: 

GFTESS:

RE: Your Reply #48.  Thanks for "clueing" me in! 

So, you've placed your faith in the gods of Scientism and have gulped down their kool-aid.  I'm convinced you hold Stellar and Darwin Evolution theory sacrosanct. 

 

 

Gee, your appreciation of Darwin is one time up   and another time down.....which one is it? 

You'll see that "random chance" comes from Darwin himself. 

Stephen A. Foglein explains it well in his book, The Apple of Knowledge: An inquiry about God and Science.

Is evolution a truth or a lie? It's both. Darwianian and Stellar Evolution are lies embedded in truth. It's a most dangerous mixture invented by the father of lies..the archenemy of Almighty God. The word "evolution" itself is confusing. It's meanings include, first of all, all processes unfolding in time, but they also include genetic progress of development by which the Evolutionist means that all process will result in time in a better, higher, condition than when it started. This is contrary to the truth. 

For example, "Natural selection" is true and is evolution in the first sense of its meaning but not in the latter.

The word "evolution" has become identified with Darwin's Theory who used it to explain the origin of animal species. He said that all life forms on earth are the result of a long development in time by chance, by natural selection, and by survival of the fittest in a constant battle for survival. By excluding God from creation, he created a dogma for Atheism. Darwinism, or biological Evolution theory as it is now called, is mixing truth and lies...that nature, including man, was created not by God but by random chance.  

 

 

 

 

Oh ya, evolutionary biology has made an impact on psychology all right...and it isn't good. 

Unfortunately, psychology is the same mixture of truth and lies as is Darwinism or evolutionary biology as you call it.  While Darwin provided the new world religion of Atheism with its dogma that nature, including man, was not created by God but by random chance over time, Freud formulated another dogma of Atheism...that there is no such thing as a soul. He said that the concept of a soul is only the personificaton of dreams, blah, blah, blah. Since there is no soul, then man is only another animal, just as Darwin taught.  Man can be studied and manipulated just as animals can.  

Psychology set out about one hundred years ago with a noble goal...to understand the human mind and find a cure for mental illness and helping out those suffering with insanity.  But now psychology is far from its original goal. It's been in the hands of atheists like Freud for a while and has become a tool against God. 

 

There are no scientific gods that I am aware of and I prefer Jack Denials having given Kool-Aid about the time I decided god was nothing but empty space in the minds of a select few. This is fun, but I would rather talk about evolution theory ... but if you insist, nonsense it will be.

Don't use 'stellar evolution'  because I prefer the scientific names; I call it cosmology (or cosmogony, cosmography, physics, astrophysics or physical cosmology as needed) depending on my immediate interest. There are no absolutes that concern mankind in the least because it would take an actual real deity to pull it off and there isn't such a thing.

You are clueless but considering you believe every word in a two thousand year old book may explain it. Darwin was a great man and his work was invaluable to science. But as smart as he was, he was dependent on the science that was available to him ... and he was brilliant for the time. We actually update our sciences as we learn new things and it isn't my fault you go to your same old outdated comic book, the unabridged one, every time you want to pretend you know something. 

Well, I can see where your expertise and terminology come from ... another bible thumper who would have guessed??? Well I think his ideas are as silly as your conclusions, but at least now I know who to blame for the improper terminology and ridiculous statements ... and who the parrot was, whatever. Are we having fun yet … can we talk about evolution now … humm?

PS - good clip huh, I like to talk about DNA too but I see you don't. It is just easier to ignore it and hope it goes away; sorry it isn’t going away … but it is going to get much better so get your ostrich act in gear.

PPS - #50 is not even worth looking at … just prattling about other things of which you seem clueless.

 

 

 

 

And don't forget "survival of the fittest" is thrown in there as well.  In his first edition of his book, this time by the entire title: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin regarded "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the 6th edition of  Origins of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was more accurate. In a still later book, Descent of Man 1871, Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism, and returned to Lamarckism. 

Back to evolution..truth mixed with lies. 

The truth part is "natural selection" but not at all in the Darwinian evolution sense because new, higher genetic information is not gained and thus no evolution change from one true species into another.   

Evolution by "descent with modification" and "survival of the fittest" is the lies part...the Evolutionary kool-aid of Lamarck (1744-1829), Alfred Wallace (1823-1913), Darwin, and his modern followers, evolution teachers today that so many uncritically gulp down.    

Wallace is considered the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace's theory is that species have changed in the past by which one species descended from another. In Feb. 1858, adding to descent with modification, he conceived the idea of "survival of the fittest" as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest? Which one is that? It's the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about evolutionary process much less being the mechanism or proving it. 

No, Genetics has no proofs for evolutionary theory becasue Genetics is science and ET is not science but pseudo science. 

Sure analyses of DNA sequences in various species show similarities, but so what? That confirms the accuracy of taxonomy and not postulated evolutionary sequences  say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics,  Linneaus not phylogeny of Darwin.

 In truth, natural Sciences have failed to provide any evidence for Darwinian, neo-Darwinian or biological Evolution, whatever you will call it.

Ken Miller has proven no such thing. Stop regurgitating the kool-aid. I'll concede such a thing as "Theistic Evolution" was developed where some foolish Christians tried to bolster ID theory and accommodate this unproved postulate of materialistic philosophies such as atheistic evolution theory is. 

Much time and intellectual effort went in vain and along the way, school age children have been duped into believing they evolved from apes. 

 

 

 

 

There is not one proof the universe is expanding. So why ask this question in this tone?

Just becasue you drink the atheistic "big bang" cosmology kool-aid---that about 13.5 billion years ago, nothing exploded into something and is still expanding/exploding producing all that we see in the starry universe today---doesn't mean we do.  

Besides which don't you know that the atheistic science establishment has changed its "Big Bang" theory from "an expanding universe"  to "an exploding universe"? But even all this is based on pure conjecture, not an observed fact. 

Turns out Natural Science is proving there are lots of deficiencies with the BB theory. The atheistic science establishment is not giving us satisfactory representation of reality. Just like others before it, the BB theory is being tipped off its pedestal. But it won't go easy for the reigning atheistic science establishment won't even consider other models of the universe that are consistent with observed facts  becasue such models have religious overtones. Oh no, they say, we can't have that. 

Creator God Who can neither be deceived nor deceive, gave us the chronology in Genesis which says something entirely different as to the order and timing of these planetary bodies. I think when all is said and done, science will confirm Genesis and possibly tell us much more. It is grave folly to dismiss the only Eyewitness, the Author of Genesis 1. 

 

 

 

  

This nonsense has gone on long enough now; what is your problem??? Darwin was just a man (like me, sort of), a religious man at that. He was no god (there are none) but you are trying to make him into one for my benefit of course, just like the science gods you invent on demand, as needed. He (Darwin) pioneered the “Origins of Species“ which in time became so expanded upon that it permeated into just about every scientific field we have today and that is absolute proof that you are misinformed, big time. You have to denounce all of them (ALL the sciences) if just one doesn’t work … but they all work and support themselves just fine … so you are either clueless or oblivious for which neither is excusable today, unless of course The Catholic Encyclopedia is your main source of misinformation. You don’t want to prove anything or else you would have at least tried by now. All you do want to do is quash everything you can blame on someone else by calling it ‘sin’ but insist on taking all credit for everything you think is good (which isn’t for mankind), just like a typical bully or common thug. You demand the respect of everyone in the world and insist we respect every nonsensical thing you believe in no matter how ridiculous it is … all the while offering nothing but disrespect for everyone who dares to disagree with you or who questions your Church’s wisdom … as well as anything they believe in too. Thanks to your dysfunctional church, even you are prohibited from asking any questions whatsoever and are forbade to even investigate outside your circle of dis-information (ever even wonder why?). I don’t have any problem at all evaluating the wisdom of the RCC, not one bit, because there is little there. I don’t have any real problems with any of the ‘gods’ because none of them have any problems with me (even yours), else they would have taken care of it themselves by now ... being concerned gods and all. I don’t have any problems with people who love and respect their gods or those who are at one with their god through spirituality, live and let live is my motto. I don’t have any problems even with you Lula, I just don’t understand just about everything you say and your logic is just nonexistent. I am sure to other Christians (of the right stripe) you are nice and fuzzy and maybe even polite at times, but nowhere else. So have a good life and enjoy your shrinking circle of dogmatic control over the lives of others who are entitled to believe whatever they like … and watch your miracle “hope chest” dwindle down to the micro-verse, but have a good life anyway. God bless you if that helps. But I do so despise hypocrisy and bigotry.

PS – if you cannot come down to planet earth to have a simple discussion, then don’t come down at all. Stay out there in the void (I would suggest some Lagrangian point or another) where you don’t have to be bothered by reality. Maybe your ‘electrical and gravimetrical demons’ won’t pester you there, who knows.  All I know is we wouldn’t be pestering each other, although my concern is just for my sanity.

Now, do you want to discuss actual for real evolutionary theory … OR NOT?

Genesis 2, version 2 of creation (don’t ask me???):

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” I don’t think omnipotence embraces getting tired from a little universal work. “Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” … his words not mine.

Now we get a little more detail concerning Adam and Eve, as if:

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground [of the whole flat earth], but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground” just in case.

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. But Genesis 1 said “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” But Eve is not even a concept in Genesis 2 yet???  In the first version (this is confusing?), god created just about everything before he created Adam but seems to remember it differently, probably for some unexplainable godly reason or another.

Wait a minute in Genesis 1 it states “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. This was accomplished on day 3 well before Adam was created on day 6, WTF???

“Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed” without the woman he had already made in the Genesis 1 world … so he will make her from a rib later, whatever.

This time through this unerringable god made the trees grow … in the garden and describes the geography in more detail than is customary or desirable for this myth.

Adam was beamed over to the garden and made to take care of it (experience?), not in today’s world. Now Adam was finely allowed to eat but was warned ‘do not eat this ONE thing’, yea right (no logic here) Adam is human right? I mean we are only talking about perfection forever or a little pussy with good behavior. God will lose every time.

This time through, god decided to fish for a ‘companion (???) for Adam so he created  a bunch of animals to see if one suited him and Adam said ‘I’m not into bestiality’ WTF (in a low voice). Adam in no uncertain terms asked god for a real helper, something he could help properly. Now god created an illiterate and subservient ‘pussy’ he named Eve and instructed Adam to resist it as long as he could … which was like a New York minute, sex being what it is. God never had a chance … and this is the sin my children and I are to suffer for, get real.

PS - this is much simpler if you just watch the vidios in (geese) #2, 4 and 6.

Here's your problem, again. 

 

"I don’t think omnipotence embraces getting tired from a little universal work."

 

So you decide this is a contradiction instead of thinking and coming to a conclusion that makes sense.  I've already discussed this IN THIS THREAD but you ignored me.  God rested because it was FINISHED and PERFECT.  Now, you said you came from a Catholic background, and if this is the way you decided to look at the Bible, you're not going to understand it.  The 'conflicts' and 'contradictions' mean you're interpreting it wrong.  Here, you're worried about whether some plants had grown up before or after the sixth day.  In the first account, God says 'make these do something' but there's no mention of how long they should take to do it.  Obviously, if He planted a garden, and it grew to make the tree, what he said made it work that way.

 

Now, I'm okay with you thinking the Bible is crap, but I'm not okay with you continuing to talk about it without any understanding.  The difference between your positions and mine is that applying critical thinking to the Bible allows you to understand and connect the dots to interpret it correctly, whereas applying critical thinking to say, macro evolution, will eventually lead to the realization that it is a fabrication.  You don't need to believe in God to see that evolution is ridiculous - but if you really want to take God out of the equation, macro evolution is the only way you can.  So they teach us in school.

 

God knew exactly what the final result of His experiment with Adam and the animals would be.  How do I know?  Because He's God.  He knew He would be making women - He was not surprised by it.  Then, He made woman, and while she couldn't read, neither could Adam, because writing hadn't been invented yet.  I like that you also say subservient, because God calls her Adam's helper, a word which is only used in the Bible here and describing the role of the Holy Spirit.  So, pretty big company.  Did you know that women in every culture are completely dominated, except in Christian and post-Christian cultures?  I wonder why that is if we supposedly believe, and the Bible supposedly says, that we should treat women like dirt.  I think you're mixing Christianity, which lifts up women to equality, with some other religion.

 

And then Adam was told to be fruitful and multiply, and he went and knew his wife, and God was pleased with that, because that's what they were supposed to do.  Have you even looked at a Bible?  It says nothing about sex not being allowed between Adam and Eve.  God told them to do it!  That was NOT sin.  The fruit from the tree was sin, because God told them NOT to do it.  But they did.

 

So now are you going to pass off your lack of understanding as a joke again?  Because it sounded like you were interpreting scripture there in such a way that doesn't make any sense, and then saying "The Bible doesn't make any sense."  No, YOU don't make any sense.  There's a difference.

And that is your complete argument for everything. Well I don't believe you, so what ... it's not as if you believed me (ever) ... but that is just different somehow, the Christian way I suppose. Demand respect while offering none to anyone else???

Just the excuse used whenever you want to stress that you have no real arguments but don't want to embarrass yourself ... so god does it all. If you could just wrap your head around the fact that I am an atheist, this might be less complicated for you. I do not believe in any god (just like you do believe, but the opposite) and it should go without saying that I don’t believe one biblical word (all about that god I don’t believe in) and I see no reason to try and make this nonsense work. I cannot make it work anymore than any other fairy tale that employs magic … they are fantasies??? I knew you wouldn’t believe a word I said, so I thought having your god tell you himself in his own words that he was tired would sink in, I should have known better. I don’t think it matters how you or I choose to interpret anything because reality (and I) don’t GAS what people think. So we look at the bible differently … you think? I didn’t write Genesis 1 or 2, those feeble minded sheep herders did and to make it worse, this is the best they could cobble together ‘corrected’ for errors for a few centuries before these jewels were committed as gods own words. Who did you say wrote them? Do you know what incest is, how it works, how detrimental it is to life itself? Well those brilliant Jewish peasants sure didn’t or they might have supplied tens of thousands more processed people to provide a minimal gene pool, but biblically humanity had only one person with genes (presumably?). That is just a species DEAD END no brainer.  But I see there are a few bushes and trees and animals I missed so this will be continued. I have read the bible; cover to cover just as I told you before … but you cannot have, not if you are comfortable stating that Christianity cherishes women (in a pig’s eye), whose first century role was to be a whipping post and an incubator, pretty much like It is in Iran today. I just cannot wait to get to the flood, which is going to be brutal for sure. You just don’t get it do you??? If you wish to be coddled, go find another Christian so you folks can pat each other on the back and sing Kumbaya till the roosters’ crow … you won’t be getting it here from me for sure.

 

For not believing in God you sure do talk about Him a lot.  To mock me, perhaps, but just think - you can't prove He doesn't exist, or even give a decent explanation for how life came to be without Him.  Then, every time I try to explain something in the Bible with the Bible that you are misrepresenting, you can't argue with me - you can just say that you don't believe in God again, so it doesn't matter.  Okay, whatever, then shut your trap about it because you're a Bible imbecile. 

 

You cannot prove ANYTHING doesn't exist so we have that in common. So this claim is meaningless but often used in all honesty I am sure??? I have quite a bit of evidence concerning much enough of the universe and much enough of the things in it to know that humans in the real world on this little pebble anyway are not privy to purposeful physics violations . I just don't need someone else explain it to me ... I am well read. All your arguments are condescending and ill willed and I am just playing with a fairy tale. Anyway I am not going to take your advice (trap stays open). I cannot see how you can make even the first two books work but as you see I can't. Ok then biblify me: set my mocks aside (I'll bring them back later) and explain creation ... reasonably ... as you have ben told by the people that know?

If you are just here to trash me and all the evidence I put forth with a shrug and a godly finger; then explain the intellectual honesty of trash talk??? I wrote this OP in the only manor I can … in the light of a poorly written fairy tale. The difference is I am telling you what I believe and why and you are trying to tell me what I have to believe in and how ... without a shred of evidence for any of it???

So you're going to talk about the Bible but without trying to actually understand why people might believe in it.  Got it.

Look, I can explain creation, because my God is powerful enough to create.  So He did.  It's the way it is in the Bible, but without all the gobbledygook you add to it.  God was tired?  No, obviously not.  But when I say that, you say 'I don't believe in God so I don't care' instead of saying, 'Oh, I see, that's reasonable for someone who DOES believe in God.'  Not even admitting there's something to this God thing, or anything, just saying that a person looking at this particular thing in that particular light is reasonable.