The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Thief]

That's a new one.

Why do you suppose that so much of Christianity is trying to undermine and discredit science. It's an ancient tradition. Christianity has been an enemy of science from the start. Copernicus knew this, which is why he waited until near death to publish his work on heliocentrism.

It's also why Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting that ours was a solar system and that there were other solar systems in space, and why Galileo was under house arrest for pointing out that the moons of Jupiter did not revolve around the earth.

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." - Dawkins

Do you disagree?

Had I lived before the first wave of scientists showed us how the universe can operate without a ruler god to move the planets or cause currents to flow through wires, I'd have been a monotheist in the tradition of the Abrahamic religions. What other choice was there?

Had I lived just after that period, I'd have been a deist, since I no longer required a ruler god, but would still require a designer and creator god.

But with Darwin and Hubble (et al.), and with godless hypotheses for the origins of the singularity and first cell such as the multiverse hypothesis and the abiogenesis hypothesis, the deist god appears expendable as well. What does such an idea add? Why reintroduce it?

had you lived before the first wave of scientists......
your belief in God would include.....
the garden event without the words....
petri dish
chosen specimen
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation

and a test to see if the alteration had taken hold

what?....cut a rib from a man and he not die?
and he SLEPT through it?
and the rib was increased to full stature?
and the increase would be a female?

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride
Eve had no navel....not born of woman

science wasn't there for Moses
but the story got told anyway

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

had you lived before the first wave of scientists......
your belief in God would include.....
the garden event without the words....
petri dish
chosen specimen
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation

Yep. We've come a long way.

 

[gnostic]

science relies on it's sureness in practice
cause and effect can never be ignored.

I am not saying science should ignore cause-and-effect. But without evidences to support the two (both cause & effect) together, it is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

For instance, it is spring in the US, and I could say that the fairies are the cause of my garden to flower this season, using their magic.

So the flowers blossoming would be the "effect", and the "cause" the fairy magic.

I would only have evidences for the "effect", but no evidences for the "cause". Without the evidences for "cause", then it would be a matter of my opinion or imagination.

Substitute "fairy" and "fairy magic" in the above scenario with "God". And the answer would be exactly the same as for the original scenario:

There would be evidences for effect (flower), but none for the cause (God).​

Science required evidences for both "cause" and "effect". If there are no evidences for one or the other, then the whole claim to cause-and-effect is not science.

Your cause-and-effect argument would only work if there were evidences to support it all. It doesn't support your argument at all, because as you have pointed to me in the past, there are no proof or evidences for God, eg. there are no fingerprints for God, you can't take a photo of God, and you can't put God on the Petri-dish and looked for him under the microscope.

"God did it" is not a scientific fact, it is merely baseless conjecture based on personal belief, relying on circular reasoning.

 

[Thief]

I am not saying science should ignore cause-and-effect. But without evidences to support the two (both cause & effect) together, it is merely unsubstantiated opinion.

For instance, it is spring in the US, and I could say that the fairies are the cause of my garden to flower this season, using their magic.

So the flowers blossoming would be the "effect", and the "cause" the fairy magic.

I would only have evidences for the "effect", but no evidences for the "cause". Without the evidences for "cause", then it would be a matter of my opinion or imagination.

Substitute "fairy" and "fairy magic" in the above scenario with "God". And the answer would be exactly the same as for the original scenario:

There would be evidences for effect (flower), but none for the cause (God).​

Science required evidences for both "cause" and "effect". If there are no evidences for one or the other, then the whole claim to cause-and-effect is not science.

Your cause-and-effect argument would only work if there were evidences to support it all. It doesn't support your argument at all, because as you have pointed to me in the past, there are no proof or evidences for God, eg. there are no fingerprints for God, you can't take a photo of God, and you can't put God on the Petri-dish and looked for him under the microscope.

"God did it" is not a scientific fact, it is merely baseless conjecture based on personal belief, relying on circular reasoning.

you're in a religious forum

and you seem reluctant to accept......
substance at rest will remain at rest....
until it is moved
by 'something'

and that something is not 'substance'

Spirit first

 

[gnostic]

had you lived before the first wave of scientists......
your belief in God would include.....
the garden event without the words....
petri dish
chosen specimen
anesthesia
surgery
cloning
genetic manipulation

and a test to see if the alteration had taken hold

what?....cut a rib from a man and he not die?
and he SLEPT through it?
and the rib was increased to full stature?
and the increase would be a female?

Adam was given his twin sister for a bride
Eve had no navel....not born of woman

science wasn't there for Moses
but the story got told anyway

That's because the whole bible stories are all myths (traditional narratives) based on primitive superstitions and hearsays.

There are no science to Adam and Eve story; the story of the Garden of Eden is not even historical.

If Eve was "clone" of Adam, in the real world, Eve would be a "man", not a "woman", because cloning is a COPY of the original, thus having the same gender as the original Adam. That's what cloning is, making a "copy".

Second, if Eve really came out of Adam, then she would essentially and technically be his daughter, not his sister.

 

[gnostic]

you're in a religious forum

No, Thief.

This is a "Religious Education" forum. So anyone who have status of being religious or not religious, are all welcome to contribute.

But if you are going to make claims about certain religious event or religious phenomena as being "scientific", in a debate for Science and Religion debate section, or Evolution vs Creation debate section, then the person making such claims should do one of the following things:

A) Supply evidences to back his or her claim.
B) Supply or cite their scientific sources.
C) Or do all of the above.​

So far you have made claims, but refuses to supply (A) or (B) to us...meaning you are merely expressing your personal opinion, which you are certainly entitled to do...BUT nothing you have stated have "scientific merit"; meaning you have no scientific evidences or sources to back your position.

For instance, the rest of your post that I have quoted below:

and you seem reluctant to accept......
substance at rest will remain at rest....
until it is moved
by 'something'

and that something is not 'substance'

Spirit first

Can you supply evidences to support the existence of "Spirit"? Yes...no?

But like you have said before, you can't put God on petri dish, then my guess is that you have no evidences for God or Spirit.

Without evidences, then your claim is not science.

Or how about you previous example with Eve being the subject of clone. Can you supply scientific sources that say Eve was a clone of Adam? Yes...no?

You can express your opinions, but don't think for a moment that science backs your claims, when you can't even supply a single scientific source or scientific evidence.

 

[Thief]

That's because the whole bible stories are all myths (traditional narratives) based on primitive superstitions and hearsays.

There are no science to Adam and Eve story; the story of the Garden of Eden is not even historical.

If Eve was "clone" of Adam, in the real world, Eve would be a "man", not a "woman", because cloning is a COPY of the original, thus having the same gender as the original Adam. That's what cloning is, making a "copy".

Second, if Eve really came out of Adam, then she would essentially and technically be his daughter, not his sister.

notice ...genetic manipulation was included in the list.

and for Eve to be a daughter.....she would need a mother

but she had no navel

 

[Skwim]

notice ...genetic manipulation was included in the list.

and for Eve to be a daughter.....she would need a mother

but she had no navel

Hey! If god can have a navel Eve can have one.

.​

 

[Thief]

Hey! If god can have a navel Eve can have one.

.​

or maybe that is the knot holding His night shirt in place......

 

[McBell]

That's a new one.

until you see the "science"...

 

[RESOLUTION]

fat chance!

I know you can't possibly think that the above is an answer to the post quoted before it by you?
That should be named 'The Man Delusion'.

 

[Skwim]

or maybe that is the knot holding His night shirt in place......

Nah, it's his navel. Just look at how his gown billows out on his left side.

.​

 

[McBell]

science wasn't there for Moses
but the story got told anyway

You present an excellent argument that the story got told because science wasn't there....

 

[McBell]

Nah, it's his navel. Just look at how his gown billows out on his left side.

.​

Looks like a hole in the ceiling that was cleverly disguised as a belly button.

 

[Thief]

Nah, it's his navel. Just look at how his gown billows out on his left side.

.​

and seems to be drawn on the right

besides.....of God has a navel.....
He would be born of woman

omg

 

[Skwim]

Looks like a hole in the ceiling that was cleverly disguised as a belly button.

Michelangelo! THEE Michelangelo, paint on a holey ceiling? Pshaw. I think not.

and seems to be drawn on the right

Pulled tight from rubbing against the cherubs behind him.

besides.....of God has a navel.....
He would be born of woman

omg

Yup. Mrs. Bruriah Carmel Efrat if I recall correctly. . . . . . . . Or was it Carmel Bruriah Efrat? Hmmmmmm.

.

 

[Thief]

we can now move this thread to the joke/game section.....

 

[gnostic]

notice ...genetic manipulation was included in the list.

and for Eve to be a daughter.....she would need a mother

but she had no navel

Why am I having this argument with you?

You are the one who believe god can do anything, not me.

By all intent and purpose, god created Adam without mother, and Adam has no navel too. So why would Eve need a mother or a navel, when Eve has neither, like Adam?

You are contradicting yourself, and you have backed yourself into a corner.

But then, you are attempting to use logic on Genesis creation.

I would suppose that it would be logical to assume if a person was to be "created", instead of being "born" from the mother's womb, there would be no belly button.

But when have scriptures ever being logical, or have not defy conventions.

For all we know, God could have included belly buttons on both Adam and Eve...it doesn't say in the Genesis, one way or the other.

Just as Genesis doesn't what colour hair, eyes or skin they have, or the length of their hair, or that Adam was bearded or beardless. Or if they were tall or short, skinny or fat.

I am not saying that you are wrong, Thief.

I am saying there are no right or wrong assumptions, because the Genesis creation lacked details as to their physical appearances, so all we can do is speculate.

You are forgetting that it is the bible we are talking about. I don't it really matter, one way or the other. It is certainly not beyond the possibility of god creating them with belly buttons, thief...

...especially when you considered that the prophet Ezekiel saw something far more outlandish than a created human that might or might not have navel...such as the four angels, with the bodies of "human", but each having four wings and four faces (human, lion, eagle and ox faces).

I think that it is absurd that you have focused so much of attention that Adam and Eve might lack belly buttons.

 

[Thief]

Why am I having this argument with you?

You are the one who believe god can do anything, not me.

By all intent and purpose, god created Adam without mother, and Adam has no navel too. So why would Eve need a mother or a navel, when Eve has neither, like Adam?

You are contradicting yourself, and you have backed yourself into a corner.

But then, you are attempting to use logic on Genesis creation.

I would suppose that it would be logical to assume if a person was to be "created", instead of being "born" from the mother's womb, there would be no belly button.

But when have scriptures ever being logical, or have not defy conventions.

For all we know, God could have included belly buttons on both Adam and Eve...it doesn't say in the Genesis, one way or the other.

Just as Genesis doesn't what colour hair, eyes or skin they have, or the length of their hair, or that Adam was bearded or beardless. Or if they were tall or short, skinny or fat.

I am not saying that you are wrong, Thief.

I am saying there are no right or wrong assumptions, because the Genesis creation lacked details as to their physical appearances, so all we can do is speculate.

You are forgetting that it is the bible we are talking about. I don't it really matter, one way or the other. It is certainly not beyond the possibility of god creating them with belly buttons, thief...

...especially when you considered that the prophet Ezekiel saw something far more outlandish than a created human that might or might not have navel...such as the four angels, with the bodies of "human", but each having four wings and four faces (human, lion, eagle and ox faces).

I think that it is absurd that you have focused so much of attention that Adam and Eve might lack belly buttons.

you are making assumptions and therein you don't follow what I say

Adam is a CHOSEN son of God (new testament)
that indicates ...
Man was a species on Day Six
male and female....no garden.....no names......no law

Day Seven.....no more will be created
THEN Chapter Two....which is not a retelling of Chapter One

Adam may have known his mother
Eve didn't have one

 

[gnostic]

you are making assumptions and therein you don't follow what I say

Adam is a CHOSEN son of God (new testament)
that indicates ...
Man was a species on Day Six
male and female....no garden.....no names......no law

Day Seven.....no more will be created
THEN Chapter Two....which is not a retelling of Chapter One

Adam may have known his mother
Eve didn't have one

What does any of this, has to do with what I had posted?