Evolution vs God. New viral vid has Atheists Pissed

[Danno 1,228]

I am asking you to explain how a 'perfect, all knowing, all seeing Creator' can create imperfection? The only answer is that such a Creator cannot do so. But let's hear your thoughts on the how and the why.

Thats your perspective. You are looking at the end of a building and have no idea how deep it is, and so it is in matters you raised.

I wish I had a great answer, as there are as many questions in the area of Faith as there are in science yet we don't discount what we already know.

-I would wonder why you would assume God would create a heaven in the here and now...... when this is not heaven, if you ask why does God allow a child to be born cripple, you assume in Gods sight the child is crippled? If God were to make all legs completely perfect in your view... you would no doubt next ask why does that child have buck-teeth or why did the other child fall through the ice while skating.

Your demand for a perfect world would never stop and ironically, at no point along the way would it cause you to believe in the God creating all this earthly perfection.

My friend if we had all the answers, we would not need faith.

You certainly have a great measure of faith in your every day life, I mean we all speed down the road with only a few feet separating us and oncoming traffic.

You seem to have no problem putting faith in all those drivers, yet when it comes to God you just can't manage.

I think there is another reason most people reject God.

Pride, they can't humble them self before God.

[Peikko 1,575]

Christianity's message to common folk, especially those at the bottom, has always been,"God cares about each and every one of you, because governments do not." I don't know about the former, but the latter seems to prove true still.

We are the government in the US, ,at least that's the constitutional position. Does that mean that in your eyes people care not a whit about each other only god does? I don't actually think that's the message either, although you can prove your point, I am not a biblical scholar, the bible bores me it so contradictory and archaic.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

We are the government in the US, ,at least that's the constitutional position.

We are a republic. The people form a government, they are not a government.

[Peikko 1,575]

We are a republic. The people form a government, they are not a government.

Apart from being pedantic, what is your point? Election of government is universal suffrage not confined to an electoral college or restricted to sections of the people. The people form a government to undertake the wishes of the electorate, us and there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the government can't go off on it's own and do what it likes. So, do you think that unless god takes care of everyone no one will or should?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Apart from being pedantic, what is your point? Election of government is universal suffrage not confined to an electoral college or restricted to sections of the people. The people form a government to undertake the wishes of the electorate, us and there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the government can't go off on it's own and do what it likes. So, do you think that unless god takes care of everyone no one will or should?

The queen of pedantic obviously lacks reading and comprehension skills. I will leave it at that.

[Danno 1,228]

In the course of scientific research facts have been come to light that have upset religious communities, but that says more about the rigidity of those religious communities than how science progresses. ........... If it did, if they did for example cite the old testament as proof that the Earth is no more than 10,000 year old or some such nonsense, then clearly they would not be basing their conclusions on anything that can be described as scientific research.

-I would bet you the views held by the Cardinals in the Catholic church are many time more diverse than say the views of the science dept of pick your fav research university. SO lets not act like the science community is open to "new ideas"

and most advances have proven that to be way wrong.

-I am not aware of any church which holds the earth at 10,000 years, even if some writers have speculated, perhaps you could cite for me the broadly held doctrine and denominations.

When one reads the account of Genesis, it reads just like Evolution, the only confusion is "how long is a day?"

Clearly God created the earth in 6 days, but scripture also says -A thousand years is as a day to God and a day is as a thousand years.

I don't make any stands on such things one way or another.

[Peikko 1,575]

The queen of pedantic obviously lacks reading and comprehension skills. I will leave it at that.

Yes, I lack the skills to make sense of what your point is, if you have one.

[Peikko 1,575]

-I would bet you the views held by the Cardinals in the Catholic church are many time more diverse than say the views of the science dept of pick your fav research university. SO lets not act like the science community is open to "new ideas"

and most advances have proven that to be way wrong.

-I am not aware of any church which holds the earth at 10,000 years, even if some writers have speculated, perhaps you could cite for me the broadly held doctrine and denominations.

When one reads the account of Genesis, it reads just like Evolution, the only confusion is "how long is a day?"

Clearly God created the earth in 6 days, but scripture also says -A thousand years is as a day to God and a day is as a thousand years.

I don't make any stands on such things one way or another.

The views on what Danno? Science, theology, the best way to make yoghurt? I do not know what you are saying, unless you are trying to say that scientists are boxed into a narrow way of looking at the physical world, which is a bit odd as that is the antithesis of what scientific thinking is all about.

I thought it was obvious that my 'example' was for illustrative purposes only, it wasn't meant to represent any actual views of any specific religious organisation. The point was to illustrate the fact that a scientists personal religious beliefs have no bearing on scientific research and if it does, then it's no longer scientific research but something else. As a result I do not concern myself at all with the personal beliefs of scientists, it's has no relevance to the science.

As for Genesis sounding like creation to you, that's fine, it really doesn't matter what Genesis sounds like or doesn't sound like, it's not meant to be a scientific description of anything so it doesn't have to make sense in any way that is scientific.

[Danno 1,228]

As a result I do not concern myself at all with the personal beliefs of scientists, it's has no relevance to the science.

Sorry you got confused, I maintain science is not this openminded inquisitive body you seem to think, they are narrow minded and click-ish and driven by ego and even funding, not purely science.

Why just look at the way some of them react towards other scientists concerning global warming.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry you got confused, I maintain science is not this openminded inquisitive body you seem to think, they are narrow minded and click-ish and driven by ego and even funding, not purely science.

Why just look at the way some of them react towards other scientists concerning global warming.

Science isn't a body at all. Science is the study of the physical world.

Really, climate scientists consensus on global warming is your proof that scientists are universally closed minded? What do you think is happening in the science world right now Danno? Do you think all the scientist everywhere in the world are just clinging to crazy theories that make no sense and that clever people like you hold all the answers?

Scientist are all ego driven crazies who seek funding for the sake of what? Money and reputation not because they have any interest at all in learning anything from conducting research?. That's beyond nutty Danno, even for you.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That makes no sense. An atheist is a person with an absence of belief, you are one by default if you do not believe in deities.

I never thought about it

So I am not a "practicing" athiest then, right? Kind of like a Catholic chick that goes to a private OMG-expensive Catholic University and wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her birth control so she does not have to curtail her whoring around.

Like that, right?

[Peikko 1,575]

I never thought about it

So I am not a "practicing" athiest then, right? Kind of like a Catholic chick that goes to a private OMG-expensive Catholic University and wants the government to force the Catholic Church to pay for her birth control so she does not have to curtail her whoring around.

Like that, right?

I have no idea what you mean by a practicing atheist. Either you believe in deities and are a theist (Note NOT Theist, just the general term theist) or you do not and you are an atheist. There is no third option for people who don't like to be categorised as atheists because they didn't ever think about any of this stuff ever, they simply are born not believing in deities because they don't exist.

The catholic analogy makes no sense so I will just ignore it.

Edited September 8, 2013 by The Truth™

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have no idea what you mean by a practicing atheist. Either you believe in deities and are a theist (Note NOT Theist, just the general term theist) or you do not and you are an atheist. There is no third option for people who don't like to be categorised as atheists because they didn't ever think about any of this stuff ever, they simply are born not believing in deities because they don't exist.

The catholic analogy makes no sense so I will just ignore it.

BS. I am Theist confused. If one can be gender confused, then by GOD I can be theist confused and I do not need you to assign me into one of your neat little holes. Stop judging people! What consenting adults choose is our own business! (rainbow flag here) You are obviously not pro-choice. Try to be open minded and accepting.

[Peikko 1,575]

BS. I am Theist confused. If one can be gender confused, then by GOD I can be theist confused and I do not need you to assign me into one of your neat little holes. Stop judging people! What consenting adults choose is our own business! (rainbow flag here) You are obviously not pro-choice. Try to be open minded and accepting.

You can believe or not believe whatever you want but what you said was that you don't waste time thinking about things that do not exist which would mean you are an atheist whether you are comfortable with the term or not. It's not a judgement and it doesn't take away any choices from you, it's just a statement of fact based on something you said. What suprises me is that you are so affronted by the idea that you might be an atheist. It's a bit odd but there you are.

However, if what you really mean is is that you do not think about these things because you do not want to waste your time thinking about things that may or may not exist then that's generally termed agnosticism.

If you don't want people to comment about the things you believe, don't believe or are confused about then perhaps posting them on a public forum is not your wisest choice?

[Danno 1,228]

Scientist are all ego driven crazies who seek funding for the sake of what? Money and reputation not because they have any interest at all in learning anything from conducting research?. That's beyond nutty Danno, even for you.

That would be a question you had better get about answering, you have absolute faith in science, each and every time it evolves (hope you are light footed).

Your confidence in the virtue of men of science is admirable, did you vote for hope and change as well?

Speaking of science and evolution and honesty..... one can't help but recall this moment in science.

-------------------------------------

The Piltdown Man was a hoax in which bone fragments were presented as thefossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. These fragments consisted of parts of a skull and jawbone, said to have been collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, East Sussex, England. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developedmodern human.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleoanthropological hoax ever to have been perpetrated. It is prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man