Customer Discussions > Religion forum

How could you not accept evolution?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2626-2650 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 12:44:00 AM PDT
I'm a Catholic and I accept some "evolution", but I in no way accept the Modern Darwinian Synthesis that is meant whenever "evolution" is spoken of.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 1:45:12 AM PDT
Susan wrote:
<<<<Chance, pure chance, this is unguided evolution. >>>>

Wrong.
That is completely wrong.

But it's a dogma of creationists that is endlessly repeated because they do NOT grasp that evolution includes a NON-random process - selection.

Mutation is random, but selection is NOT random.

Creationists seem unable to grasp that, so we get endless repeats of the nonsense claim that evolution = pure chance.

Susan - frankly, you just do not understand evolution. Whoever taught you about it is simply wrong. Perhaps you live in a religious community who are teaching you false information. Perhaps you should consider studying what evolution is really about.

Q.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 1:50:25 AM PDT
David A. Lawlor says:
<<<<Hello Sir, Can you sight one example, accepted by the international scientific community of even one species evolving into another species? The answer is no.>>>>

Actually, the answer is YES.
There are many many examples.

If only you would look, instead of repeating false claims told to you by creationists.

Many examples can be found here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

What a pity you won't study the evidence.

Q.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 3:29:58 AM PDT
Re Fields, 4-21 11:37 PM: "As evolution can never be conclusively demonstrated or ever proven correct." Your ignorance is dismaying: I have presented a proof that evolution is correct in these forums [1].

"you postulate there is no god ..." I postulate nothing of the kind. But all of the following are provable:
- It is impossible to prove that no god exists.
- It is impossible to prove that any god DOES exist.
- It is impossible to derive any information from any theory of god [2].

1. Copy, into the Search Customer Discussions box, the following:
search+key+saunderse
Un-check "Search only this discussion", and click GO. From among the selections shown, choose the one containing "Search key:" -- which is probably on the same page.

2. See this on the same page as above, with "saundersg".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 7:56:19 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 22, 2012 7:58:30 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 7:57:08 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 22, 2012 7:58:35 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 8:01:26 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Susan wrote:

> Chance, pure chance, this is unguided evolution.

Perhaps so. But pure chance also isn't evolution by natural selection.

All the best,

'prob

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 8:25:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 22, 2012 8:26:36 AM PDT
'probabilist says:
Hi, Kenneth -

What makes you so certain that you know the thoughts of God?

What makes you so certain that the evolution of our physical bodies through a natural and human-understandable process (which is extremely well-established science) says anything at all about whether God exists?

Thanks,

'prob

Posted on Apr 22, 2012 9:46:23 AM PDT
Kenneth, what is your purpose here? It's clear that you're not interested in understanding facts. Your mind is closed to "I believe in a story-book. The end." Evolution has been clearly demonstrated but you discount it all for your invisible, make-believe goddy. No one here is going to even try proving that your fantasy is real anymore than we are going to try to prove the reality of Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. There are plenty of fascinating posts such as Saunders post of evolution of the eye and E. coli. and I'd love to have a site where we can discuss evolution without godbots like you distracting from a good discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 9:50:56 AM PDT
J. Rigney says:
Can anyone tell me how to opt out of this "Discussion." It is really a waste of my time. Thank. you.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 10:02:11 AM PDT
No, I'm not a philosopher. What I posted was strictly physics. By the definition I posted of physical information, namely the complete physical description of the system under consideration, this exists independently of any "knowing" or "understanding".

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 10:03:23 AM PDT
That is really deep.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 10:05:49 AM PDT
In the not too distant future (maybe before 2100) it will be possible to reconstruct the complete genome of the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and then show step by mutated step how the two different organisms developed from this ancestor. Then anyone can see how we and chimpanzees evolved. If someone wants to insist that this only happened because God guided all the steps (mutations), fine, but it will no longer be possible to argue that it couldn't have happened through a series of mutations.

IMO.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 22, 2012 10:07:29 AM PDT
Physical information is not lost. It just transmutes. There is the same amount of physical information in the universe now as in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, just in different form.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 7:39:07 AM PDT
Re Rigney, 4-22 9:50 AM: "Can anyone tell me how to opt out of this "Discussion." " Do two things:
- Stop posting here.
- If there is a yellow bar near the top of this page labeled "Stop tracking this discussion", click it.

What you should then do is to read up on the science, such that you might actually learn something about how the world really works. At present, your education is seriously deficient.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 9:50:47 AM PDT
What you should then do is to read up on the science, such that you might actually learn something about how the world really works. At present, your education is seriously deficient.

If he actually learned any science, it would impair his beliefs in Adam and Eve and Noah. In his world, "God did it. The end."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 10:56:20 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
Linda, unfortunately, we proably all know plenty of people who refuse to learn anything that might change or challenge their belief system.

I knew a woman who had left an ultra-fundamentalist cult. I asked her if she'd like me to do an astrological chart for her. She'd apparently never heard of astrology - !! - and asked, "Will it make me stop believing in the truth?" I withdrew my offer.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 12:37:57 PM PDT
J. Rigney says:
It is very interesting how atheists are so hateful. It is no discussing truth with them because the are trying to take the position of God. That is what Satan is trying to do.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 12:41:15 PM PDT
quert says:
J Rigney,

Yours: "Unfortunately, at a certain point in time, their imperfect spirit stopped developing, and became materially oriented, where they lived for the sake of physical enjoyment for themselves, and not for the sake of others."

q: Why do you think the biological process is/was necessary for the spiritual evolution you describe? I see you believe in a divine plan. Do you think the plan (as you interpret it) originally included a more equitable physical/spiritual co-development that somehow ran amok? Just curious.

Posted on Apr 23, 2012 1:04:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 23, 2012 1:31:37 PM PDT
J. Rigney says:
Hello quert, You asked: "Do you think the plan (as you interpret it) originally included a more equitable physical/spiritual co-development that somehow ran amok? Just curious."

The whole creation is a pair system with subject / object relationships. The + should be in the subject position while the "-" is the object position. Concerning the first Human ancestors, they were in the position of co-creators with God. God created 95%, and Adam and Eve were to accomplish one-ness with God. They were to perfect their character and perfected their spirit and heart, centered on God's true love (living for the sake of others). In order to be one with God, and be able to converse with Him, the mind, like all of creation, was supposed to be the subject over the body, (+/-) But they did not wait until their spirit was developed enough to understand God's commandment not to "eat." They "ate," became ashamed of their sexual parts, and covered them because they were ashamed of what they had done. Before the fall, they were naked and not ashamed. They hid from their parent. One blamed the other, and that began the blame game.

Monkeys are not into that type of development. Their plan was to be organ grinders. Adam and Eve were to be son and daughter of God, and the original perfected ancestors of the heavenly parent.

If Adam and Eve had dominated their bodies up to time of their perfection, "fruitfulness," then God would have blessed them in marriage and then given them permission to have physical relations. If they could have developed their spirit and become "fruitful/ (mature/ready to multiply )" and the "temple of God," and "perfect, even as their Father in Heaven is perfect," they would have connected 100% spiritually to the cosmic consciousness and understood God's purpose for them, and would have raised children of goodness. Their home would have been the first school of true love. They could have established a true family, and they would multiplied and filled the earth and take true dominion over all centered on True love.

The purpose of religion is to bring back on the track of reaching perfection and oneness with God, and His original Plan for His Ideal of Creation. Jesus came with the plan, but ultimately no one believed him. He was killed. Christians are waiting for the second coming of the anointed one, the messiah who will come with the original plan, and the means and understanding on how to solve the problems in the world. It takes time.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 1:49:20 PM PDT
quert says:
Wow, that's quite the mash-up you've got going there, with a judicious amount of sexual content to keep the troops interested, looks like. I'm not sure, but I don't think I got an answer to my first question, though...why, in your opinon, is physical existence necessary for spiritual union with god?

Posted on Apr 23, 2012 2:55:55 PM PDT
J. Rigney says:
TO quert,
You asked: Why, in your opinon, is physical existence necessary for spiritual union with god?
God created the physical existence, universe, world, animals, plants, all for humankind to rule over, and for God to enjoy through humankind. God himself had no physical existence in the beginning, so He made a plan on how to turn energy into material, and to create particles, atoms, molecules, matter, plants, animals, and human beings. The humans are supposed to be his reps in the cosmos, His "offspring". He is to walk and talk through them. He could smell the flowers, create things through them, and they would be His children, and His family. God needed a partner, and created humankind to be that partner. He is Subject, and we are His object. We are meant to reach perfection with Him, and then take dominion over the creation for Him. He of course will be walking and loving and having absolute true sex through us, His perfected family.

God did not want "god-bots" as someone coined, so He gave them the goal to reach perfection, "fruitfull." He wanted spiritual equals, those who can control things as they can control their own bodies. He could live for the sake of "real" others.

God could relate with spirit beings, but He wanted the "real" thing.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:00:02 PM PDT
Joe W says:
Nope. I mean what i say. Chemistry.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:02:13 PM PDT
Joe W says:
Susan: The brain is made of cells. And some living entity put the relationship in place.

Take all the components of a cell, put them in a beaker, shake for a trillion years, you will not get a functioning cell. The entity is the catalyst that makes it all work.

Joe: That is what you are attempting to assert. Would you care to bring some evidence to the table?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 23, 2012 3:28:48 PM PDT
quert says:
J. Rigney,

So basically you're saying that the physical world and biological existence is God's-Play for his own amusement and diversion? You're not alone, there are mystics and people with viewpoints that have a more "Eastern" flavor that suggest the same thing.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  175
Total posts:  2998
Initial post:  Jun 24, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 4, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions