Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

peter vlar
reply to post by Itismenotyou

 

And that's all fine and good. I don't doubt your experience. From my perspective, I've yet to experience anything of that nature and have seen no evidence to support the thesis. I am open to the possibility, I just don't see it as likely until he finds me or evidence presents itself. Experiencing god though is nowhere near the same as literally interpreting the guide book of Bronze Age shepherds and equating it with scientific corroboration as many people seem to. You can be a good person and live a life that is in line with Christ's teachings and not believe in god and the holy trinity. We should be judged for how we treat others not who we whisper to in dark moments of despair or how we view the legitimacy of our current scientific models.

I can see you are a truly honorable person searching for your way in this life also. But I need to add that we can't live by Christ's teachings if he was a liar. He spoke of peace and that it was the best way. I have found that to be true. He spoke of love and that it was the best way. I have found that to be true. He said he knocks at our door and we just have to open it. I have found that to be true. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. I have faith that Christ also spoke the truth when he said only through him can we get to the Father. I hope peace and truth for you on your journey.

reply to post by Itismenotyou


morality is the subject of much discussion in evolution, i would say that our morality is a combination of genetic, neurological and cultural factors. So thats why if you talk to an amazonian head hunter with a necklace made of shrunken human heads and say "why is it ok that you have a 5 human heads around your neck?" he may reply
"i know, my brother has 16!".

as for humans being the most advanced form of life, on the face of it yes...but we must consider what advanced means, is there such a thing, or is it a human idea based on creation? in the future we may be cyborgs, then robots, then a hive mind of biomachines...and then a cloud of gas floating through space, all knowing and truly enlightened as i think is the premise of 2001 a space odyssey.

Itismenotyou
except for all the other people who have independently and individually experienced Christ. That makes it empirical evidence.

Personal anecdotes are not considered evidential by science. They can sometimes be interesting, but they are only ever good for generating a hypothesis, not proof of anything on their own.

reply to post by randyvs


Possible Explainations:

-The skull comes from a relative of Homo Sapien, not Homo Sapien
-The skull comes from a population of Homo Sapien that evolved that specific trait for whatever reason(it wouldnt be the first time. Look up the pygmy people.)
-The skull comes from a completely unrelated specie of hominid/primate
-Birth Defect

I'm sure there are plenty of other explainations regarding the skull's origins. ... But I'm not sure why you think it would challenge the idea of evolution regardless.

For the sake of sounding less dogmatic you could say "proponents of science" instead of "evolutionists."

Murgatroid

While you are quoting Carlin, why not quote some of the things he said about religion..

reply to post by HairlessApe

For the sake of sounding less dogmatic you could say "proponents of science" instead of "evolutionists."

I've decided that's a good point. Point taken.

randyvs
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

For the sake of sounding less dogmatic you could say "proponents of science" instead of "evolutionists."

I've decided that's a good point. Point taken.

Really? So, creationists are not proponents of science? I think that is exactly what is wrong with this discussion. We are called creationists over and over and we don't cry about it cause well, we believe in creation and ID. Why is calling someone who believes in evolution and evolutionists somehow denigrating? There are plenty of scientists who believe in creation and to give that term over to pro evolution people being "Proponents of science" is a subtle slap at those who do not believe in evolution.

I'm surprised you didn't see that Randy. Let' them be proud of being an evolutionist. I am proud of believing in the science that supports creation and I am a creationist.

reply to post by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

While you are quoting Carlin, why not quote some of the things he said about religion..

I started to say because it's off topic because I actually AGREE with much of what Carlin said about religion.....

Actually, it's dead ON topic.

Religion is the real reason people DO believe in evolution.

Why?

Because science, just like religion, is being used as a mind control tool.

"Evolution Is A Religion Based Upon Faith And Assumptions That Have Nothing To Do With Science..."

Let me put my thesis very plainly and undiplomatically: Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons.

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

reply to post by Murgatroid


no what is wrong is that the reading comprehension skills of todays Adult is close too NIL.
"theory of evolution"

theory not established fact.theory,,,you would swear that it was taught as fact.lets read the title again,, "theory of evolution"

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Really? So, creationists are not proponents of science? I think that is exactly what is wrong with this discussion. We are called creationists over and over and we don't cry about it cause well, we believe in creation and ID. Why is calling someone who believes in evolution and evolutionists somehow denigrating? There are plenty of scientists who believe in creation and to give that term over to pro evolution people being "Proponents of science" is a subtle slap at those who do not believe in evolution.

Well now that's a good counnter point isn't it ? It's not like I'm thinking about changeing the
name of the thread.

BobAthome
reply to post by Murgatroid

 

no what is wrong is that the reading comprehension skills of todays Adult is close too NIL.
"theory of evolution"

theory not established fact.theory,,,you would swear that it was taught as fact.lets read the title again,, "theory of evolution"

Apparently the good pickles bus skipped your street too. In science a theory isn't the same as when Scooby and the gang have a hunch or theory. It means this...
scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by peter vlar


And i quote u "then gather evidence to test their accuracy." keep going,,,evidence being,,,

BobAthome
reply to post by peter vlar

 

And i quote u "then gather evidence to test their accuracy." keep going,,,evidence being,,,

You're right I concede. The answer is God is great. Alahu Akbar and Shalom. The evolutionary process is an utter hoax and the earth is 6400 years old.

The evidence could have you sit on its lap and ask what youwant for Christmas and you would still deny it.

reply to post by peter vlar


well i guess he ,,God must be doing one of those "mysterious ways" things of his. Cause i personaly don't care if u conced anything,, just keep an open mind,, but dont let yur brains fallout

reply to post by peter vlar


Evolution has JUST as much credibility as any Hanna-Barbara production.

I suppose if someone is going to believe what the 'Gubmint' and mainstream academia says, they might as well go all out.

Believing George Soros' wackedpedia is just another goose step in the same direction.

Hate to be the one to break it to you but...

They actually CAN put things on the Internet that aren't true.

"Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence."

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)
Wikipedia Disinformation & Propaganda

robin22391
reply to post by Itismenotyou

 

morality is the subject of much discussion in evolution, i would say that our morality is a combination of genetic, neurological and cultural factors. So thats why if you talk to an amazonian head hunter with a necklace made of shrunken human heads and say "why is it ok that you have a 5 human heads around your neck?" he may reply
"i know, my brother has 16!".

as for humans being the most advanced form of life, on the face of it yes...but we must consider what advanced means, is there such a thing, or is it a human idea based on creation? in the future we may be cyborgs, then robots, then a hive mind of biomachines...and then a cloud of gas floating through space, all knowing and truly enlightened as i think is the premise of 2001 a space odyssey.

That is a very good point. I have to agree that culture does have a great impact on morality. As for what is the cause of one's morality, I would say that it occurs during our experiences. But some people view morality as not even existing. I have to disagree with them, only based on my experiences. But morality is not physical. It is mental, spiritual, dimensional, however you want to express the term. Morality happens with a thought. Then the morality, itself, determines what we do when faced with a moral dilemma.

I have never seen the word ( advanced ) viewed the way you view it. Is there even such a thing you asked. That is a good question. I view it as any kind of trait, attribute, skill, ability, even belief that gives one dominance in a given situation and/or any given situation.

Hmmm. Cyborgs, robots, hive mind. In the realm of probability who really knows. You may be on to something.

Murgatroid
reply to post by peter vlar

 

Evolution has JUST as much credibility as any Hanna-Barbara production.

I suppose if someone is going to believe what the 'Gubmint' and mainstream academia says, they might as well go all out.

Believing George Soros' wackedpedia is just another goose step in the same direction.

Hate to be the one to break it to you but...

They actually CAN put things on the Internet that aren't true.

"Wikipedia is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence."

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)
Wikipedia Disinformation & Propaganda

When you have the first inkling of how much independent research ,that has nothing to do with glomming onto mainstream tenets, is involved in writing a thesis on 50,000 years of cohabitation of Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal in the Levantine Valley then we can chat about who what and where my sources originate. I'll stop using dumbed down links for you from now on since that seems to be your main argument with me. I'll link directly to the papers, will that make a difference for you? The text inevitably is the same whether I throw up a wiki link or a peer reviewed journal. I don't post something if I can't stand behind it and I won't source something I don't think will stand up to scrutiny.

If evolution has as much credibility as a cartoon, where lies the credibility of your infallible benevolent savior? There's more evidence of Fred Flinstone and Barney Rubble than there is in your god.

However for those who couldn't send away for hooked on phonics, if you actually read anything I've written, you would have seen that I don't discount the possibility of a god. I've simply been presented with no evidence of he/she or it that goes beyond people's feelings. Not a shred of independently verifiable evidence or data. I don't find it a hypothesis likely to be vindicated but I'm open minded enough to realize that while the probability is low the possibility does exist. Unlike you I'm not so arrogant as to think that my worldview needs to be forced down anyone's throat or that it is the best and only way to live. Are you a Christian? If so you're frequent condemnations aren't very Christian of you, how will god or Jesus feel about that? I don't believe so I can sleep soundly.

reply to post by peter vlar


History my dear girl, history. You see there is more evidence of the life of Yeshua than any other from that time period, though the little scribes try to say otherwise. We have the witness testimony, the acts of the Apostles, the fulfilled prophesies, the very hand of God in nature evidence for all to see, and yes, even the plan of God written in the stars where not sneaky scribes can alter it, so I say we have a lot more evidence on our side.

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by peter vlar

 

History my dear girl, history. You see there is more evidence of the life of Yeshua than any other from that time period, though the little scribes try to say otherwise. We have the witness testimony, the acts of the Apostles, the fulfilled prophesies, the very hand of God in nature evidence for all to see, and yes, even the plan of God written in the stars where not sneaky scribes can alter it, so I say we have a lot more evidence on our side.

interesting, I wasn't aware that such splendiferous conjecture and hyperbole was now considered the best of evidence. And when did I have gender reassignment surgery? My wife is gonna be pissed.Lest I digress further... Eye witness testimony is written at the time of the incident by the people involved not by 3rd party sources decades or in some cases centuries later. If Acts of the Apostles is such a historically accurate depiction, why then does it describe Paul as a person and as a theologian, very, very differently than Paul describes himself and his beliefs. Compared to Pauls' letters you would think they were talking about an entirely different Paul. What prophesies were fulfilled? When someone writes something down 1000 years earlier its extremely easy to fulfill it without divine intervention. The script is already written, it's like going to the Globe and seeing a production of Shakespeare today. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for those sneaky scribes though!

reply to post by peter vlar



That is a very good point. What kind of evidence would one look for when searching for God? What kind of evidence would you look for?