Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

a reply to: Phage

That "article" seems to be the OP's own blog.

Yes, that's why I used the second person possessive pronoun when referring to it.

a reply to: pthena

Hard to argue when someone knows their declensions and conjugations.

originally posted by: Marma
a reply to: Woodcarver
I have studied mainstream science, and I believe that all of it is true.

Science 'Fiction'... NOT a big fan...

I recently wondered why it is that, seeing how people in general don't trust politicians, corporations, the media etc., why it is that 'scientists' apparently get a free pass from society. It's as though what these "false-prophets?" say is almost always believed. Put a white lab coat on anyone and automatically what they say is near gospel.

Darwinism is an Illuminati Scam

originally posted by: vasaga
It has come to light that modern day science is no longer being looked at objectively. Its achievements have clouded our minds. It has gone so far, that we are blindly trusting in it, and are following it just like people following a religion. Science is no longer serving the purpose of discovering truth. It has become the main method of control. We should live our lives as if we are scientists ourselves, and not fall into the religion of scientism.

Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

How do you know if you have fallen prey to the cult of 'Scientism'? Answer this question: Can you differentiate between the collective human understanding of 'how' things work in our material world, and the 'why' of how they came to be that way. (or even why it does what it does at all.) Those are two very different questions, that scientists, (who frequenty are very bad philosophers,) often get mixed up. Never forget that 'science' can be as abused for the sake of religious or anti-religious preconceptions as equally as the Bible can be, on both sides of a debate.

Combating the cult of "Scientism."

a reply to: Murgatroid

Read the article, we can discuss later.
The Illuminati played their role, this collective "play" is perfect, and to understand that, you need to understand how the Universe really works.

originally posted by: Phage
It should be noted that the theory of evolution addresses neither the origin of the Universe or the origin of life.

In other words, red herring argument. A logical fallacy. What a surprise.

The theory of evolution hardly addresses evolution so it isn't likely to address anything else related to science
Your point is valid, evolution stands alone, outside of common sense and logic.
Why it's is a faith, believe in the scientific origin of the universe with no scientific evidence and then life with no scientific evidence, no more evidence than magic sky fairies at least and then believe in evolution.
It may be a red herring or fallacy but evolution can not in all reasoned logic stand on its own, unless there are no other options and grasping at straws is science


If evolution falls in a forest and there is nobody to see it, did it make any difference

a reply to: Marma
I'm much less deterministic than I once was.

It's the same reason why a random bum on the street will collect a certain amount of money depending on how many people walk by. Your individual action counts, but if you don't do it, someone else will.

The homeless, nearly homeless, and others who are in want often die of exposure, illness, dehydration and untreated injuries and illness.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

The thing with evolution is there really is no way to do anything but make educated guesses.

As opposed to the alternative type of guess?

There is very much evidence that latter species have evolved from previous species. No evidence to the contrary.

There is very much evidence that the Earth is round. No evidence to the contrary.

Outside of pretty pictures and YouTube scientism sites can you show us the empirical scientific evidence please phage
There is plenty of evidence to the contrary re latter and earlier species evolution, like there is no empirical scientific evidence
The universe from nothing, life from nothing
Get your tail boy, get your tail, go get it

a reply to: Marma

I did, which is WHY I asked about your sources...

a reply to: pthena

Indeed. My point was not that they wouldn't die, but that they will get some amount of change each day depending on the number of passers by. Probably a bad example given the sensitive topic. But the example of how your physical body works is better I think.

a reply to: Murgatroid

At this point, I would have to say... God!
In all seriousness, this is something that happens to me since last year, when I had a rather rough spiritual awakening. Ideas/messages just pop into my head, and I write about them.

a reply to: Marma

Yep.

God did it.

Perfect. Say no more.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Marma

Yep.

God did it.

Perfect. Say no more.

To your alternative

Magic did it, a Big Bang?
Space dust and space water abracadabra life

Come on, you substitute one faith for another and act like a scientific pariah
Yours is just a different god


And then why the "say no more" comment phage
Are you defining the spiritual argument, are you telling us what to do or are you just trying to imply we don't have questions and don't want to seek out answers
Are you trying to frame what we should do, why?

Modern science is built on the church educating people, seeking out how God created the universe
Atheistic science is built on spiritual giants who sought after the things of God

a reply to: Phage

Hahaha, thank you God. You're a pretty funny guy.
Would be so annoying if I were always agreeing with myself.

a reply to: Raggedyman

BOTH happened, and if you read my article, you will understand how.

a reply to: Phage

Life in general, or just life on earth? It can be argued life started somewhere else, or cosmic evolution started life. I'm rambling. What I am trying to get at is the universe seems to evolve, physics from right after the big bang were no where near what they are at this point in time. When life here on earth sprouted somewhere, it wasn't just 'an accident' it started because of a series of evolutionary events.

a reply to: strongfp

Every accident is the result of a series of events.

a reply to: Phage

Everything accident or otherwise is the result of events

Look Wikipedia explaining how the church instigated science
How non believers, atheists offered nothing, did nothing in relation, prior to the modern church

So your "say no more" comment seems somewhat a reflection on early atheism as opposed to Christianity have you ever noted what the most prestigious universities were inspired by. Faith or lack of faith?
No answer expected phage

Hey look Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Faith is cool.

But religion burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo, whom many consider to be the first scientist.

a reply to: Phage

Care about religion or faith being cool or not

I am more concerned about you framing the "no more" statement as if those of faith do nothing "no more" when clearly history and current dedication by those of faith show otherwise
You deny what has gone before and what is now happening and that's a blatant lie
Your atheist science was and is built on men of faith who have preceded it.

"No more" is a silly childish comment that denies history

Gallileo was not the first scientist; religion and the church has many faults, I generally don't defend them

But, the church brought the West hospitals, reasoned governments and education that exploded the sciences
Now your atheism is turning the sciences back into a faith dialogue with a poison denying those who preceded them
It's wrong, if left to you and your kind the West will return to the dark ages

a reply to: Raggedyman

Galileomwas not the first scientist

Galileo was the first who is known to have applied what has become known as the scientific method; observe, theorize, predict, modify and repeat as necessary. To not ignore facts but to incorporate them.

But, the church brought the West hospitals

The church claimed that the black plague was God's will. The church promoted superstition. Science rejects superstition, rejects a demon haunted world.