Evolution is the only theologically plausible answer

[Wildswanderer]

I'm not talking about what is attributed to the apostles or Christ. We are talking about what is being done today by people that claim we have the same evidence and then dismiss that evidence for no good reason or by citing already refuted evidence.

You can dodge around all you like, but if you base your claims on what you are being told by the ICR or Answer in Genesis, you are being lied to. If you know that and still do it, do you consider that the valid work of a Christian?

I'm not being lied to... that's just your perception.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly. ?

Do you have anything valid as evidence that challenges what we have learned using science?

Do you think that God created this complex and beautiful creation so that we could just wonder around it like empty-headed idiots?

Do you think that God gave us minds and senses so that we couldn't use them to better understand His Works?

Do you think that we should substitute nonsense for facts?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So you are ok with a statement that we all have the same evidence, when your actions indicate that you don't believe that at all?

That's not what you originally said.
We do all have the same evidence.
Why do you keep pretending we don't?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not being lied to... that's just your perception.

No.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's not what you originally said.
We do all have the same evidence.
Why do you keep pretending we don't?

I'm not the one pretending we don't.

You have this evidence, then use it. Stop chasing me around trying to find ways to demean me and show me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Do you have anything valid as evidence that challenges what we have learned using science?

Do you think that God created this complex and beautiful creation so that we could just wonder around it like empty-headed idiots?

Do you think that God gave us minds and senses so that we couldn't use them to better understand His Works?

Do you think that we should substitute nonsense for facts?

No, which is why I believe the creation account, over ever-changing theories.
But you are free to call creationists idiots if you would like, although it must come close to breaking the rules.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No.

Yes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, which is why I believe the creation account, over ever-changing theories.
But you are free to call creationists idiots if you would like, although it must come close to breaking the rules.

The theories are just the scientific explanation of the facts.

I have strong reasons to doubt your understanding of science has much to do with your dismissal of it.

I see. When you are cornered and have nothing, you start implying threats.

I haven't called anyone an idiot. Show me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.

No and you haven't shown otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, which is why I believe the creation account, over ever-changing theories.
But you are free to call creationists idiots if you would like, although it must come close to breaking the rules.

It would be a good idea that you do not misrepresent what others have said.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm not the one pretending we don't.

You have this evidence, then use it. Stop chasing me around trying to find ways to demean me and show me.

I'm not chasing you around, and if you stop all the silly replies, you won't have to hear from me at all.

The evidence I see points to a Creator, and I find man's theories to be pretty useless for the most part.
" The Big bang started everything."
" Oops, no, actually that wasn't the beginning."
" I know, maybe there are billions of universes."
( Which doesn't solve anything)
"Obviously, a single cell organism formed because of a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle, and from there everything just kind of gradually built on itself."

( Sounds like a fairy tale.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes.

Do you actually anything relevant to defend your position that science is wrong about the age of the Earth, evolution or anything technical or is just to be more of this fencing that goes no where?

If you just want to malign me or trick me into saying something I know is wrong, I'm done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not chasing you around, and if you stop all the silly replies, you won't have to hear from me at all.

The evidence I see points to a Creator, and I find man's theories to be pretty useless for the most part.
" The Big bang started everything."
" Oops, no, actually that wasn't the beginning."
" I know, maybe there are billions of universes."
( Which doesn't solve anything)
"Obviously, a single cell organism formed because of a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle, and from there everything just kind of gradually built on itself."

( Sounds like a fairy tale.)

My replies are not silly.

Your response doesn't make much sense. It isn't anything that science actually says.

This is where you have taken this. Not me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not chasing you around, and if you stop all the silly replies, you won't have to hear from me at all.

The evidence I see points to a Creator, and I find man's theories to be pretty useless for the most part.
" The Big bang started everything."
" Oops, no, actually that wasn't the beginning."
" I know, maybe there are billions of universes."
( Which doesn't solve anything)
"Obviously, a single cell organism formed because of a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle, and from there everything just kind of gradually built on itself."

( Sounds like a fairy tale.)

You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are here challenging the best explanations we have through science and you can't even begin to dispute them with anything based on evidence or reason from evidence. I think that is well-established by now.

I'm done.

 

[Valjean]

How do you define " natural"? Something made everything exist instead of nothing. Whatever that something is is the definition of natural, because everything else naturally is derived from it.

But God is conceived as a magical, conscious, intentional Personage. The physical laws and constants from which the known universe is derived are impersonal, unconscious and without intention, purpose, or goals. They are not God. You're equating chemistry and physics -- nature -- with God.

 

[metis]

I left my fundamentalist church back in the 1960's because of their anti-science orientation as they believed and taught YEC. There is not one shred of evidence that suggest that the YEC paradigm is correct.

As far as a belief in creationism is concerned, that is quite clearly more faith-based than objectively derived as we have no objective evidence for this. If someone says "Something had to start this universe", that doesn't even begin to answer the question as to what it was. Many assume that it must be the Judeo-Christian concept of God, but there's no objective evidence for that either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I left my fundamentalist church back in the 1960's because of their anti-science orientation as they believed and taught YEC. There is not one shred of evidence that suggest that the YEC paradigm is correct.

As far as a belief in creationism is concerned, that is quite clearly more faith-based than objectively derived as we have no objective evidence for this. If someone says "Something had to start this universe", that doesn't even begin to answer the question as to what it was. Many assume that it must be the Judeo-Christian concept of God, but there's no objective evidence for that either.

My belief is that God created, but I don't accept Genesis as a play by play of that and see it as allegorical. I recognize that I have no evidence and understand the role of science as it is followed, but I don't fear it or feel threatened by science or atheists as so many believers here seem to be. I don't see how looking at the world as it is and trying to understand is a threat to anyone. I consider that it is what God wants of us while we are here.

 

[metis]

My belief is that God created, but I don't accept Genesis as a play by play of that and see it as allegorical. I recognize that I have no evidence and understand the role of science as it is followed, but I don't fear it or feel threatened by science or atheists as so many believers here seem to be. I don't see how looking at the world as it is and trying to understand is a threat to anyone. I consider that it is what God wants of us while we are here.

I agree with you, and my faith in God doesn't stem from objective science but from a long string of "events" that lasted 2 & 1/2 years that was unwelcomed at first but then near the end leading me to rejoin the Church. However, don't ask me to try and define God as I'm clueless about that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But God is conceived as a magical, conscious, intentional Personage. The physical laws and constants from which the known universe is derived are impersonal, unconscious and without intention, purpose, or goals. They are not God. You're equating chemistry and physics -- nature -- with God.

Why do you think that the physical laws are impersonal? Or without intention? Do you see anything being created currently without intention?
I've never seen the most simple mechanism form itself. If you want to make a simple latch for a door you have to be intentional about it. It takes intelligence. So does nature.

 

[Wildswanderer]

My replies are not silly.

Your response doesn't make much sense. It isn't anything that science actually says.

This is where you have taken this. Not me.

" Science" has no answer for the beginning of the universe.
They sure like to make a lot of guesses though.